Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 178,136

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
HTS

Williston, ND

#125224 Mar 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true. I did not define information. But then neither did you.
Information is a very poor term to use anyway.
And your poor analogy proved my point. Thank you.
So why don't you go back to your claim about not increasing information and trying to post it properly.
So now you're saying that there is no such thing as information?
Answer my question...
What has more information?
A 300 page textbook of physics.... or 300 pages of random letters?

I'm curious to see just how deluded your mind is.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125225 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where Chimney, where?
Where are these continuums that you lovingly refer to?
Well we have a good one in the hominid line. Several species of Australopiths that become gradually more hominid to the point where soem were arguing the Sediba should be a Habilis. And habilis is not so different from Ergaster, which is so similar to Erectus that some say they are the same species, and later Erectus being so similar to rudolphensis and then heidelburgensis which are so similar to archaic sapiens that again, there are arguments, and then the virtually seamless morphing into the first modern 190,000 y.a. which still looks pretty heavy boned compared to today's people but within the modern range.

The continuum is so good that paleontologists argue constantly about where the species lines are.

And in an apish parody of science, even your Baraminologists of creation fame cannot agree where to put Adam. Was he an Erectus? A Heidelburgensis? Omo Man? They cannot agree, because there is NO MAGIC LINE in the continuum.

As for the horse, of course there is a continuum. The is a collection of species getting less eohippus-like and more equus like over millions of years. In fact, just as with hominids, we have found so many species now, that its impossible to say exactly WHICH ones took the next branch to equusdom. Thus several possible "continuums" available.

But don't miss the forest for the trees...the WHOLE GROUP over time show exactly what evolution predicts, a transition from something like an eohippus to something like a modern horse. There is NOTHING in the fossil record like a horse 40 million years ago. But there is a family of creatures getting more and more horselike.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125226 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll follow your lead and present you with a theory...
I propose that a turnip can be selectively bred into a bottlenose dolphin.
Unless you have perfect, omniscient knowledge, you cannot prove that NO POSSIBLE pathway exists to any given biological structure evolving.
Therefore your denial of my theory fails even in principle.
You structured that entire hypothesis on a fallacy, thus it collapses under it's own weight. You fallaciously assert, and even demand, that evolution is not only directional, but also skips billions of generations.
HTS

Williston, ND

#125227 Mar 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course how the mantis shrimp evolved can be explained. Didn't you read the articles linked to you?
And of course I can imagine how it could happen.
Oh wait. I have it now. YOU cannot explain how the mantis shrimp evolved and YOU cannot imagine how it evolved.
Don't push your failures upon others.
You're a weasel, SZ, but I can see through you.
You can't imagine how it evolved.
If you could, you'd explain it.
You'd prefer to hide behind links that you don't understand.
Those links do not explain how the mantis shrimp evolved.
If they do, show me where?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125228 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you're saying that there is no such thing as information?
Answer my question...
What has more information?
A 300 page textbook of physics.... or 300 pages of random letters?
I'm curious to see just how deluded your mind is.
Neither, both are equally valid.

Depending on the method you determine the "random letters" with, it can tell you a lot. For instance, using a computer. Computer numbers are not random, ever, there is no actually randomized numerical value ever produced by a computer. It's actually a sequential stack of numbers, hardwired into the computer. The "seed" value is the current "point" on the stack. Most programs simulate actual randomness by changing the seed value by the time of access, then selecting a limited number of values from the stack in order. If you select all the letters based on the same starting point, not altering the seed by time, then after a while you will get repeating values. Thus, you will know the values stored in the random list on that particular computer for that particular boot, most modern computers mix the values up each boot procedure now.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125229 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How laughable. You deny being a bigot and use the word "creatard" in the same sentence.
Belief is not a race, thus, the entire assertion made is inherently false.
HTS

Williston, ND

#125230 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you guys keep prattling about living fossils, when there is no demand by evolution that creatures MUST change, only an explanation for why they usually DO CHANGE. What do living fossils have in common? They are generally in very stable niches and having reached a sort of local optimum in structure, and not having been defeated by any more recent competition, they have continued to survive. So what?
.
Natural selection is a tautology.
The niches are "stable" because living fossils haven't changed.

Tell me, chimney...
Does evolution "predict" that a mouse will evolve into a flying mammal?
If you had a time machine that could travel 100 million years into the past, would evolution "predict" that a terrestrial rodent similar to a mouse would evolve into a bat to exploit a new niche?

ToE cannot make any predictions. All you guys do it observe reality, plug everything into the evolutionary paradigm, and imagine that evolution "predicts" what you see.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#125231 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a weasel, SZ, but I can see through you.
You can't imagine how it evolved.
If you could, you'd explain it.
You'd prefer to hide behind links that you don't understand.
Those links do not explain how the mantis shrimp evolved.
If they do, show me where?
This is 100% projection.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125232 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll follow your lead and present you with a theory...
I propose that a turnip can be selectively bred into a bottlenose dolphin.
Unless you have perfect, omniscient knowledge, you cannot prove that NO POSSIBLE pathway exists to any given biological structure evolving.
You are right. I cannot prove that a turnip could not one day evolve into bottlenose dolphin!

I can point out that before the event, as this surely is, I would regard it as unlikely, especially given that the common ancestor of the turnip and the dolphin was neither one nor the other but a far simpler species, probably a monocellular eukaryote more like an amoeba.

Thus asking the turnip to go back down the road its evolved FROM, and undoing all the beneficial mutations its experienced over a billion years, then replicate all the beneficial mutations from the simplest jawless fish to amphibian, reptile, and mammal, all over again in precisely the right order, probably wouldn't happen in 1000 lifetimes of this universe.

But then again, every species alive today is highly unlikely, to the point where, if we went back a billion years and played forward evolution again a 1000 times, we would be unlikely to come up with the same species or even the same phyla again. Something would evolve, but it would not be us or our fellow creatures today.
HTS

Williston, ND

#125233 Mar 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You structured that entire hypothesis on a fallacy, thus it collapses under it's own weight. You fallaciously assert, and even demand, that evolution is not only directional, but also skips billions of generations.
That's a theory of yours that you cannot prove.
I'm saying that your entire hypothesis that IC can evolve collapses under its own weight. You fallaciously assert, and even demand, that evolution can create complexities that you cannot logically demonstrate even on paper to be possible.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#125234 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
By "magical wizards" and "supernatural"......
Are you referring to the evo-fairy and the laws do science that allow unorganized matter to form DNA?
Does photosynthesis follow the laws of chemistry or not?

If there is any mystery in the organisation of this universe, it lies in the basics of chemistry and the laws that allow complex chemistry to occur. And that is already a given once we are talking about the evolution of life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125235 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How laughable. You deny being a bigot and use the word "creatard" in the same sentence.
How is that being bigoted? Haven't both you and rusty proven yourselves to be creatards of the worst stripe?

It looks like you may be the bigot. Not all creationists are creatards. That is a special description of the worst of them.

Come back when you have a real point to make.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125236 Mar 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did you dodge what I posted? Again:
Really? What do you have that's an "objective base" for your morals? Which "objective base" did you choose?
We can get into the details of that or you can actually pay attention for once. The very fact that you chose a specific set of morals makes them subjective, they cannot be objective if any type of choice is applied, choice eliminates objectivity.
You have no objective basis for morality

None

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125237 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you're saying that there is no such thing as information?
Answer my question...
What has more information?
A 300 page textbook of physics.... or 300 pages of random letters?
I'm curious to see just how deluded your mind is.
No, I did not say that at all. And this is only more evidence that you have earned the term "creatard". Congratulations.

So go back and fix your post that led to this and then maybe I will answer your incredibly stupid question.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125238 Mar 25, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither, both are equally valid.
Depending on the method you determine the "random letters" with, it can tell you a lot. For instance, using a computer. Computer numbers are not random, ever, there is no actually randomized numerical value ever produced by a computer. It's actually a sequential stack of numbers, hardwired into the computer. The "seed" value is the current "point" on the stack. Most programs simulate actual randomness by changing the seed value by the time of access, then selecting a limited number of values from the stack in order. If you select all the letters based on the same starting point, not altering the seed by time, then after a while you will get repeating values. Thus, you will know the values stored in the random list on that particular computer for that particular boot, most modern computers mix the values up each boot procedure now.
Forget it HTS

You're dealing with delusional evo-tards for whom its EVOLUTION OR BUST

Evidence and logic are the hapless roadkill-carnage on this highway to nowhere

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125239 Mar 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a weasel, SZ, but I can see through you.
You can't imagine how it evolved.
If you could, you'd explain it.
You'd prefer to hide behind links that you don't understand.
Those links do not explain how the mantis shrimp evolved.
If they do, show me where?
Bullshit.

I can't help it if you are an uneducable idiot.

As I have told you many times over, you have a chore to do before you can demand anything. And keep those links handy. If you ever fulfill the requirements that you keep dodging I will be happy to go over them with you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125240 Mar 25, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no objective basis for morality
None
How hilarious. One of the least moral persons on this forum says that KK has no objective basis for morals.

What a maroon.
HTS

Williston, ND

#125241 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. I cannot prove that a turnip could not one day evolve into bottlenose dolphin!
I can point out that before the event, as this surely is, I would regard it as unlikely, especially given that the common ancestor of the turnip and the dolphin was neither one nor the other but a far simpler species, probably a monocellular eukaryote more like an amoeba.
Thus asking the turnip to go back down the road its evolved FROM, and undoing all the beneficial mutations its experienced over a billion years, then replicate all the beneficial mutations from the simplest jawless fish to amphibian, reptile, and mammal, all over again in precisely the right order, probably wouldn't happen in 1000 lifetimes of this universe.
But then again, every species alive today is highly unlikely, to the point where, if we went back a billion years and played forward evolution again a 1000 times, we would be unlikely to come up with the same species or even the same phyla again. Something would evolve, but it would not be us or our fellow creatures today.
OK, you can't imagine that a turnip could be bred into a bottle nose dolphin. You cannot in your mind contrive a logical evolutionary pathway. You don't believe that it could happen. Fair enough.

I cannot contrive a logical evolutionary pathway for the evolution of the weaponry of the mantis shrimp, and neither can you.
Why do you accuse me of fallacious logic in stating that I don't believe that it could happen. Why should I have faith in evolution? All you can do is diffuse the issue by expecting me to assume the validity of ToE based on unrelated evidence. It is a skeptic's prerogative to pick at any inconsistency of a scientific theory. In defending the ToE, appeals always need to be made to the overall validity of the theory. No specific mechanism of evolution can ever stand on its own.

I would submit that the only reason you have faith in the evolution of irreducible complexity is because you have faith in the general ToE. If there existed insurmountable evidence that ToE was true, then I could understand your point. What evidence do you have that no intelligent design exists? You only have philosophical evidence.

The problem of IC is an enormous problem for the theory of evolution. It's not isolated to a few curious cases.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125242 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So, after all your pontifications the fact remains.....
You cannot omnisciently rule out all the possible ways a a mantis shrimp might have evolved.
Therefore the IC argument is a failed one, even in principle.
Huh?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#125243 Mar 25, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How hilarious. One of the least moral persons on this forum says that KK has no objective basis for morals.
What a maroon.
And you have no objective basis for morality

None

AND you ignore my inconvenient posts...

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) 2 min Denisova 154,810
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Denisova 17,939
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 2 hr Dogen 915
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Mar 25 MikeF 3,394
More from around the web