Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180382 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125111 Mar 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Rusty linked an article earlier that seemed legit. It told how Sanford had submitted his book for peer review and it was set to be published with peer review. The problem was that it was not peer reviewed by biologists. It was peer reviewed by information science specialists. Sanford purposefully avoided having his "theory" peer reviewed by biologists. He knew it was based upon false premises. And information scientists would be the first ones to tell Sanford GIGO.

That fits perfectly with what I know of Sanford. He knows his own assertions are rubbish, but is bound and controlled by his own theology.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125112 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing was explained.
I was branded as illogical because I wanted a scientific explanation.

You have been branded illogical because you are illogical.

You will not accept a scientific explanation no matter how much proof is given.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125113 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing was explained.
I was branded as illogical because I wanted a scientific explanation.
No, you were branded as illogical and uneducated because you didn't understand what was explained to you. Not surprising since you think a book that wasn't even written in English, then translated into some redneck English is actually scientific.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125114 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have done is proclaim that even though a functional continuum cannot be imagined by either you or me or anyone, it just might exist.
I did not say "it could not be imagined by anyone". I said, we may not know how it came about. That is because in most cases, structures have NOT come about through a straight line from start to finish, and we do not know all the real or potential functions the components may have had in the past. We can imagine all we like, but that is just conjecture.

Where we DO have the lineage for large scale change, we have seen huge and surprising changes in structure and function occurring gradually and showing in principle that this kind of change happens. e.g 3-boned middle ear.

Therefore, its no leap of faith. Its merely understanding that a process that can account for some hard to predict changes can certainly account for others where we are not lucky enough to have a complete fossil record.
You've given a canned argument that could be used for any complex biological system, even if it is irreducible complex.
Yes, I have! Don't you hate that?

Unlike those who try to suggest that the pathway might have been "this or that" and get hung by you on your next little game, the "just so story accusation", I have gone for the jugular.

I have invalidated your entire "IC" approach no matter how many silly examples you try to drum up. YOU CANNOT possibly know and rule out all possible pathways. So there is NO WAY of proving something is IC! End of IC as an argument. Kaput.

IC is a monumentally DUMB approach when you think about it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125115 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None of those links even attempt to address IC

Hummm.... somehow you missed the first link.

How many pages of it did you even read?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125116 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no logical gradualistic explanation.
You can't give one...chimney can't give one
Dawkins can't give one.
You have FAITH in your evo-fairy.
You were shown a lot, you just ignored them all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125117 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I listed the integrated parts.
How is that "unsupported claims"
You really have no clue.

How are we to know those are so called "integrated parts".

You gave no evidence to back up your claims. A list of parts that you say, with no evidence, could not have evolved is not evidence.

No, let me rephrase that. Your list of parts is for all practical purposes no evidence. All I need to debunk your claim is to say they could have evolved.

You need evidence that they could not have evolved. Not unsupported nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125118 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Chimney, you apparently disagree with Chuck,
You have categorically rejected all examples of IC, even those that you haven't examined,
When you approach scientific investigation with a foredrawn conclusion, you are not practicing science...
Chuck provided a grossly simplistic explanation of eye evolution, glossing over critical obstacles. After hashing over the argument over 150, evo-tards have declared that the argument is "settled". It has never been settled. The problem of IC is bigger than it was 150 years ago, given man's ever expanding understanding of the complexity of all biological systems.
He was right. If IT COULD BE DEMONSTRATED. But it cannot be, even in principle. So Chuck was right, and a master of irony to boot.

I am not approaching with a "fore-drawn conclusion". I am talking about the limits of our knowledge. See its YOU who have the foredrawn false conclusion that just because you cannot see how something evolved, is proof that it could not have.

I am saying, that without perfect, omniscient knowledge, you CANNOT POSSIBLY make such an assertion. You cannot ever KNOW something is IC, even if it was!

So looking for IC is a flawed approach to falsifying evolution. And I tip my hat to "Chuck" for letting you stew on a red herring for 150 years and still not getting it.

Well, now your fish is cooked.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125119 Mar 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You have been branded illogical because you are illogical.
You will not accept a scientific explanation no matter how much proof is given.
How much "proof" do you have that a mantis shrimp evolved?
You have nothing.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125120 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I studied the talkorigins link
In a nutshell... It tells skeptics to expand their imaginations.
As a last resort, they pull out e "argument from incredulity" card.
They have no scientific explanations...
Not for the flagellum, the coagulation cascade... Nothing.

Sorry, but your ignoring the information does not make it go away.

I am not here to tell you what to believe. You can believe whatever you want. I am just here to point you to the evidence that demonstrates you are wrong.

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

Pretty well debunks IC and has 90 references for you to review.

If you need more:

https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/i...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j....

http://www.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/Intelligent_...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20006482

So, you see, the idea just does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125121 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave evidence.
I listed the irreducibly complex integrated parts.
You're parroting the same atheist BS... That it's unscientific to question a scientific hypothesis.

Well, it might be unscientific for a moron who does not know what he/she is talking about to question THEORY, but it is the hallmark of science that scientists can and MUST do so.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125122 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say "it could not be imagined by anyone". I said, we may not know how it came about. That is because in most cases, structures have NOT come about through a straight line from start to finish, and we do not know all the real or potential functions the components may have had in the past. We can imagine all we like, but that is just conjecture.
Where we DO have the lineage for large scale change, we have seen huge and surprising changes in structure and function occurring gradually and showing in principle that this kind of change happens. e.g 3-boned middle ear.
Therefore, its no leap of faith. Its merely understanding that a process that can account for some hard to predict changes can certainly account for others where we are not lucky enough to have a complete fossil record.
<quoted text>
Yes, I have! Don't you hate that?
Unlike those who try to suggest that the pathway might have been "this or that" and get hung by you on your next little game, the "just so story accusation", I have gone for the jugular.
I have invalidated your entire "IC" approach no matter how many silly examples you try to drum up. YOU CANNOT possibly know and rule out all possible pathways. So there is NO WAY of proving something is IC! End of IC as an argument. Kaput.
IC is a monumentally DUMB approach when you think about it.
What is "monumentally dumb" is your assertion that a scientific theory should be accepted on faith.
You IMAGINE that a pathway exists, even though you cannot explain any possible gradualistic course that it could take. That is "monumentally dumb" because you are embracing a theory that:
1.... Cannot be demonstrated to occur
2....Cannot be demonstrated to be POSSIBLE

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125123 Mar 25, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a partial quote, tantamount to a lie. Why do Christians lie so much? Who would want a religion based on lies?
Post the following three paragraphs from Darwin's book if you don't want to keep your reputation as a documented liar.

I am afraid HTS is stuck with his liar reputation. He has told far to many whoopers to get off by telling the truth only once.

The most skillful liars (not HTS) know how to merge 90% truth with 10% deception to get 100% deception. HTS's slash and burn lying method will never be successful.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125124 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>None have failed. They have been countered by the canned response that Chimney posted...
Actually, not true. Many have been refuted by research into the actual simpler systems they could have sprung from, specifically knocking down Behe's assertions that all the parts are useless until the whole is assembled.

See rotary flagellum
See immune system
See clotting cascade.

All refuted, and not by my canned argument. Though they should illustrate my canned argument in action...

I simply point out that without omniscient knowledge, NO human can possibly assert that they know all possible evolutionary pathways to a given structure, and can rule them all out. Thus it gives wry amusement to me when one or other of your IC shibboleths gets knocked to pieces by actual research, and more amusement that you blankly go on looking for the next example rather than come to realise how futile your approach is, even in principle.

IC is a failed approach.

Kaput.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#125125 Mar 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but your ignoring the information does not make it go away.
I am not here to tell you what to believe. You can believe whatever you want. I am just here to point you to the evidence that demonstrates you are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_comp...
Pretty well debunks IC and has 90 references for you to review.
If you need more:
https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/i...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j....
http://www.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/Intelligent_...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20006482
So, you see, the idea just does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
I've read the wiki explanation...
It ultimately relies on the "incredulity" card and is therefore devoid of scientific validity.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125126 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already demonstrated that the mantis shrimp is IC
Now you pull out the "incredulity" card...which is code for "you don't have a scientific answer."

A little error in your wording; surely you meant I've already demonstrated that the mantis shrimp is *NOT* IC.

Leaving out one little word like that can make your whole post sound batguano crazy.

Remember, the creotards have not one jot of evidence for IC, nor for any of the other nonsense notions that the failed I.D. canard did spawn.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#125127 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How much "proof" do you have that a mantis shrimp evolved?
You have nothing.
Nothing?
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/290...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125128 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no logical gradualistic explanation.
You can't give one...chimney can't give one
Dawkins can't give one.
You have FAITH in your evo-fairy.

Evolution is observed.

You love to run away from that fact.

Now, can you explain why the ToE is not the very best explanation for the observed fact of evolution?

And what does "gradualistic" have to do with the modern evolutionary synthesis (MES)?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125129 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I listed the integrated parts.
How is that "unsupported claims"

How is a parts list SUPPORT for IC?
[hint: it isn't]

Ergo it is UNsupported.

This is really not that hard. How many times did it take you to pass your GED?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125130 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist because I question a theory.
You think "science" is "too busy" to be bothered to defend a theory that they already know is true.
You know that you always have the "incredulity" card,... So you'll just pull it out whenever you get pinned to the wall.

Are you denying being a religious fundy?

Does ANYONE here know a creationist that is NOT a religious fundy?

Anyone?

Anyone?

.....

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) 26 min John 32,184
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min John 76,974
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min Dogen 221,949
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 34 min John 796
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Genesis Enigma 162,488
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 3 hr The FACTory 101
A musical evolution lesson. 6 hr Willy 8
More from around the web