Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179628 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.

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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124757 Mar 23, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your "math" assumed that all mutations were beneficial...Your "math" was nothing of the kind.
Nope, not even close. I assumed a very low percentage of beneficial mutations when I showed that you were wrong. The amount of beneficial mutations needed is a small fraction of a percent of all mutations.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124758 Mar 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Thanks, I will check that. I log in automatically so I never check that.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124759 Mar 23, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Maybe I am just lucky. I logged out and logged back in and could not see anything.

Or maybe the moderators know that my use of the "tard" epithet has always been properly applied ;^)
defender

Tucker, GA

#124760 Mar 23, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>What is pharyngula?
You wanta believe you have fishy gills in early development knock yourself out there killer!! We'll just keep laughing...
More kool- aid anyone?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124761 Mar 23, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
You wanta believe you have fishy gills in early development knock yourself out there killer!! We'll just keep laughing...
More kool- aid anyone?
Actually you have the almost the same "seed" as gills. The structures that become gills in fish become various other organs in our bodies, including the ears, mandible, and larynx.

I think one of the reasons that creationists hate Haeckel so much is that, even though he was wrong about certain aspects of evolution, they have no valid answer to his drawings.

In the same way creationists hate TalkOrigins since they rely on peer reviewed science for all of their articles and there are links to the supporting articles. Something that creationists never can do.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#124762 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe I am just lucky. I logged out and logged back in and could not see anything.
Or maybe the moderators know that my use of the "tard" epithet has always been properly applied ;^)
It seems the "moderator" changes from thread to thread. I'm quite sure the one issuing the warning was a religiturd.

Oh that reminds me, next Friday is "Savior on a stick" day!!
HTS

Mandan, ND

#124763 Mar 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you have the almost the same "seed" as gills. The structures that become gills in fish become various other organs in our bodies, including the ears, mandible, and larynx.
I think one of the reasons that creationists hate Haeckel so much is that, even though he was wrong about certain aspects of evolution, they have no valid answer to his drawings.
In the same way creationists hate TalkOrigins since they rely on peer reviewed science for all of their articles and there are links to the supporting articles. Something that creationists never can do.
Ernie drew early fish and human embryos to look virtually identical.
They are nott... Not even close.
That is scientific fraud.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min karl44 11,451
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min scientia potentia... 195,395
Science News (Sep '13) 24 min scientia potentia... 3,602
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 51 min ChromiuMan 150,593
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 4 hr ChristineM 14,568
News Neil deGrasse Tyson embraces intelligent design... 6 hr Rome Viharo 1
Rupert Sheldrake debunks evolution 6 hr Rome Viharo 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr READMORE 29,473
More from around the web