Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180376 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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125454 Mar 26, 2013
i hate t rex wrote:
<quoted text> New evidence suggests it was closer to 3,700,000,000 years of evolution, because 3.5 billion wasn't enough.
How about we debate the need for the difference in 3,500,000,000 years. Meet you there, M'kay?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125455 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
Are you a creation racist bigot too?
I mean CREATION RACIST BIGOT
You have no idea about the content, quality or science of the book
You, like others presume that as creationists are involved, then that alone is sufficient for the science to be erroneous or substandard....WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS
So
I guess you too are a verified CREATION RACIST BIGOT

Are you kidding me?

The quality (actually lack of) creationist "science" is well known.

It is not just that it is inferior in quality to real science, it is actually that they don't DO ANY science.

SERIOUSLY!

Here is a link to an issue of the "Journal of Creation"

http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-253

See if you can find any ACTUAL RESEARCH in ANY OF IT!

Now, second guessing published research is NOT research. The is more pseudoscientific op ed.

FIND ACTUAL SCIENCE IN CREATIONIST PUBLICATIONS OR SHUT UP!


I'm laughing at the inferior intellect!


Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Mine is that id fails as science. Does Springer have egg on their faces for putting it up to start with? Of course.
Science isn't perfect, but it is self correcting. Apparently science publishing is up to the same standard.
Nice (but late) catch Springer-Verlag.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125457 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that he wanted to backtrack from whatever plant to a giraffe.
Going backwards in evolution is very problematic since you must "undo" mutation by mutation. Even forwards is problematic if you guide it, look how long it took to evolve an ecoli that could digest citrate. When you breed for one particular aspect that is more difficult than doing what evolution naturally does which is go for good enough. So if you are extremely demanding in what you want, as HST is the amount of time to get a specific result could be approaching infinite, at least as far as the life of the universe is concerned. If you are willing to settle, which is the evolutionary way it might be possible.
But to breed a giraffe, and I am sure that HST would not be satisfied unless it could be interbred with today's giraffes. Not possible in my opinion.
Meh, for all we know, the tree could evolve animal life that is capable of photosynthesis ... but you are right ... the probability of interbreeding with today's giraffes would likely be problematic. I think it best if we just delay that part of the argument for 3,500,000,000 years. At least then we wouldn't need to debate the bit about evolution being accurate.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#125458 Mar 26, 2013
To clarify my claim before I run for a few hours.

If you are evolving life separately from the life we see on the Earth. Say you had an almost identical planet. Even with selective breeding starting from nothing I do not think you could breed a giraffe on your planet that could interbreed with a giraffe on our planet. I will give one condition where you might be able to do it. If you had a record of giraffe DNA and extensive knowledge of genetic engineering you might be able to build a giraffe by going into the cell itself and planting the needed genes. By normal evolutionary biology, even with selective breeding, it could not be done.

Evolution is a random drunkards walk down a hill. You will not be able to follow the exact same path using other drunkards.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125459 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're living in La-La land, Dogen.
ToE is weaker now than ever.
LOL. You are silly.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> With the ever-expanding knowledge of the complexity of DNA,
Can you give an example? Or is this an unsupported and ignorant assertion?

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> the abject failure of abiogenesis,
What are you talking about now? What new silliness have you made up to substitute for science? In what way has abiogenesis "failed"?

I provided you with the universal logic behind abiogenesis which you were unable to refute (actually never even made an effort).

Origins research is growing rapidly. Sounds like success to me.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> the failed junk DNA debacle,
You continue to repeat this assertion, but can never provide any proof of your assertion. Assertion-evidence=fail.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> the collapse of genetic determinism,
You continue to repeat this assertion, but can never provide any proof of your assertion. Assertion-evidence=fail.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> the documentation of genetic entropy in higher organisms
??? Genetic entropy was refuted in early October 2005. You are over 7 years behind the times.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> and the utter failure to document a single transitional fossil
An obvious lie since thousands of major transitional fossils are known and millions of minor transitionals. Evidence does not disappear just because you wish it.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Darwinism is more absurd now than it was in 1859...
BY FAR.........
Sorry, based on the above (which you are to cowardly and incompetent to even attempt to address) you are refuted.

Come back when you can support your empty assertions.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125460 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Duplicate chromosomes and inserted transposons are not "added information", particularly in view of the fact that you have relegated them to the "junk DNA" category.

You are confused as to what "information" means in genetic context. A duplication of a chromosome doubles the information. Likewise the addition of transposons. It does not, however, immediately add to the body of USEFUL information.

Is is sort of analogous to adding new bookshelves with duplicate volumes to what you already have. But in this case there is no selective pressure to maintain the material and you can discard duplicate volumes to make room for new material.

And they are not all non-coding so they are not, per se, junk. But they are redundant.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125461 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, if you contend that they debunk my arguments, then you need to site specific references within the articles.
As an atheist, you have no moral values by definition,...so why should I simply accept your word?

You do not make arguments. You make assertions.

You would do well to learn the difference.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125462 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to the literature about measured rates of decomposition
--- they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years since dino extinction, even if they had been kept at freezing point
Let alone the much warmer climate proposed for the dinosaurs
--Nielsen-Marsh, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, pp. 1214, June 2002
http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/0240...
----------
So you are completely wrong....as usual....
And dino soft tissue could not have survived under even the BEST conditions for 65 million of years

LOL. You love to jump in and talk about things that you don't understand. More recent research shows that when the tissue is dehydrated and isolated from biological activity. That the ONLY limiting factor for their longevity is radioactivity caused degradation (what we would call mutation if it was a living organism).

No only could these molecules be 65 million years old, they could be 650 million years old!!!


*** DEHYDRATED MATERIAL IS NOT BIOLOGICALLY DECOMPOSING ***

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125463 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
You have NO objective basis for morality

Objective basis or not, atheists tend to be, on the whole, more moral than us.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125464 Mar 26, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't presume to lecture us, SubDud
You're the one who named yourself "mud"
Not us

Ah, you can't answer again.

This is getting pretty obvious.



Subduction Zone wrote:
A challenge to Rusty and How's That for Stupid:
Do either of you know what Sanford et al did wrong in the method of their submission of their book to Springer?
Springer was right to take away their peer reviewed stamp once they realized how they were bamboozled.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125465 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you've said evolution has no direction.
Oogah Boogah says he can breed a crabapple into a giraffe.
It should be easy to drive evolution in a chosen direction if you can artifically select the best mutations.
They'll just magically appear.
All you have to do is grow crabapples and keep the offspring that are mutating in the direction of a giraffe...
It's really quite simple.
Simple. Good choice of words.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#125466 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't know IF a naturalistic mechanism is possible.
The way your sentence was framed PRESUMES that a naturalistic pathway exists.
If a naturalistic pathway is impossible, then it logically follows that intelligent design must be a force. That is as far as science can go. Any specific aspects of that intelligent design falls under religion.

You don't do logic, I can see.

Argument: evolution happens either by nature or magic poofing.
1. Evolution happens (observation)
2. Nature accounts for all the observed phenomena that have been fully investigated.
3. magic poofing has never been observed.
4. no phenomena are explainable by magic poofing.
Therefore it is more likely that evolution is explainable by natural mechanisms. Following conclusion: A natural pathway likely exists.

Argument 2: ID is not science.
Science explains how things work (mechanisms)
ID has no known mechanisms.

Science is based on observation.
ID has never been observed to change anything.

Science requires evidence
ID has no supporting evidence.

Science is based on research.
ID has no (supporting) research.

Science requires peer review.
ID has no (supporting) peer review.

Science requires falsifiability.
ID is not falsifiable.

Science requires adherence to principle of parsimony (within reason)
ID fails parsimony.

Science is published in reputable journals.
ID is not published in reputable journals.

Conclusion: ID is not science.

Argument 3: Evolution is science.
Science explains how things work (mechanisms)
Evolution has known mechanisms.

Science is based on observation.
Evolution has been observed.

Science requires evidence
Science has supporting evidence.

Science is based on research.
Evolution has tons of research.

Science requires peer review.
Evolution is peer reviewed.

Science requires falsifiability.
Evolution is falsifiable.

Science requires adherence to principle of parsimony (within reason)
Evolution is parsimonious.

Science is published in reputable journals.
Evolution is published in reputable journals.

Conclusion: Evolution is science.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#125467 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
In other words, you have FAITH that every species, known and unknown evolved WITHOUT God. That is not science...that is religion.
Aren't you the clown that was just whining about someone interjecting religion into things?

Better have that foot looked at.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#125469 Mar 26, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you kidding me?
The quality (actually lack of) creationist "science" is well known.
It is not just that it is inferior in quality to real science, it is actually that they don't DO ANY science.
SERIOUSLY!
Here is a link to an issue of the "Journal of Creation"
http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-253
See if you can find any ACTUAL RESEARCH in ANY OF IT!
Now, second guessing published research is NOT research. The is more pseudoscientific op ed.
FIND ACTUAL SCIENCE IN CREATIONIST PUBLICATIONS OR SHUT UP!
I'm laughing at the inferior intellect!
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Mine is that id fails as science. Does Springer have egg on their faces for putting it up to start with? Of course.
Science isn't perfect, but it is self correcting. Apparently science publishing is up to the same standard.
Nice (but late) catch Springer-Verlag.
NO NO NO - there is plenty of good science, and not an assumption in sight

(From your link - specifically Modern science in creationist thinking)

'If we accept all observations about the universe, realizing they are tainted with certain assumptions, which may be wrong, then creationists have a starlight-travel-time problem. This is true if we believe only 6,000 years have passed since the creation of the most distant light sources, and that they were all created at that time, as measured by normal Earth clocks, and we hold to the convention that the timer was started when the star was created. But if the timer was started when the light first arrived on Earth, when someone first saw the event, then this is the Anisotropic Time Convention,6 and there is no light-travel-time problem. There is nothing to answer'

Sarcasm aside - how come creationists have no shame when they read the above and claim creation.com to be a legit scientific source - even though it basically says

'Yeah, that's a problem - but if we make shit up - we don't have to address it'

the irony of course being that the above nuggets of creation non-science is just below an explaination of historical and operational science.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125470 Mar 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we can't conceive of a single naturalistic explanation for phenomenon X. Does that make God the default explanation for phenomenon X?
No.
However, in the case of natural systems of irreducible complexity such as the weaponry of the mantis shrimp, it appears that a naturalistic explanation is impossible. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that there is intelligent design.(It is not possible to scientifically conclude a specific version of intelligence such as a personal God, etc., through science).

It's more than not being able to conceive of a naturalistic explanation, it appears impossible.

Example: Suppose you visited a distant planet and found a perfect pyramid of symmetrically stacked bricks...
It is reasonable to assume that it was produced by intelligence, because a naturalistic explanation appears Impossible.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125471 Mar 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, once again wrong. Since a natural path has been shown to occur thousands of times at the worst we DEDUCE that a natural pathway exists.
Come on, you know better than this. You are in effect lying for Jesus again. He does not need your help.
No, a naturalistic pathway has been IMAGINED to exist thousands of times.
Macroevolution has never been proven to be possible.
Storytelling is not science.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#125472 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
However, in the case of natural systems of irreducible complexity such as the weaponry of the mantis shrimp, it appears that a naturalistic explanation is impossible. Therefore, it is logical to deduce that there is intelligent design.(It is not possible to scientifically conclude a specific version of intelligence such as a personal God, etc., through science).
It's more than not being able to conceive of a naturalistic explanation, it appears impossible.
Example: Suppose you visited a distant planet and found a perfect pyramid of symmetrically stacked bricks...
It is reasonable to assume that it was produced by intelligence, because a naturalistic explanation appears Impossible.
Going to break my rule and ask you again - 6th ones a charm
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Question : if ToE IS atheistic in nature, are those of faith that DO support it not real Christians ?
Fancy a rational considered response instead of your pointless blithering ?
Can't see why you keep dodging this

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#125473 Mar 26, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you've said evolution has no direction.
Oogah Boogah says he can breed a crabapple into a giraffe.
It should be easy to drive evolution in a chosen direction if you can artifically select the best mutations.
They'll just magically appear.
All you have to do is grow crabapples and keep the offspring that are mutating in the direction of a giraffe...
It's really quite simple.
Something would evolve to fill the niche now filled by giraffes. You can call it whatever you like, we'll figure that out after it is done, Mkay? Meet you back here in 3,500,000,000 years .....

dumb butt.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125474 Mar 26, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just demonstrate how chemistry prevents particular chemical reactions from ever occurring?

Dr. Charles B. Thaxton, a physical chemist, wrote,

"No one to date has published data indicating that bonding preferences could have had any role in coding the DNA molecules."*

*[Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), p. 148.]

You are imagining that simple chemistry can create order. You have no science to back that up.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125475 Mar 26, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Going to break my rule and ask you again - 6th ones a charm
<quoted text>
Can't see why you keep dodging this
Anyone who is a Christian and believes in ToE is contradicting one of two things....
1. He denies the atheistic mechanisms of mutations and natural selection and believes that God is driving the evolutionary process.

or

2. He believes totally in ToE and believes in God but denies that God is the creator.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min Eagle 12 - 78,712
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr ChromiuMan 163,037
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Eagle 12 - 32,457
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 6 hr Eagle 12 - 1,411
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 hr Regolith Based Li... 222,225
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Sat Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web