Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126206 Mar 31, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you're saying technological advancements didn't proceed according to your personal version of how they should have happened, therefore evolution never happened.
How many times do I have to say this? The universe is not obligated to conform itself to your ignorance.
Urban Cowboy is a Flintstone who could build a Chevy Corvette out of old rocks.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126207 Mar 31, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
To date I have seen many creationist take pot shots at talkorigins, but they come up empty when it comes to disputing its science.
Try that and I will take you more serious.
ad webinem is all they have

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126208 Apr 1, 2013
Russell wrote:
If you think this one pager rubbish can falsify the geologic column you are nuts. Its directly refuted in the article I sent you.

And yes, all regions have periodically been subject to sedimentation and erosion, so parts will be missing. But in comparing different sites (where these processes occurred at different times) the whole picture emerges easily. And there are some sites where buildup so far exceeded erosion that the whole column is present.

Impossible to take you seriously if your think THIS refutes the geologic column.
And
http://aufiles.creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j2...
And maybe this short article
Likewise this one. Better remind you that "index fossils" are merely a secondary dating technique, used practically in the field by oil geologists etc for the most part because its reliable...but the definitive dating comes from radiometric etc.

IN any case the assertion that the layers are mostly found LATERALLY adjacent is pure falsehood. How can we take this seriously???
Talk about circular:

"You may be surprised to learn that fossils are being found “in the wrong place” all the time. Out of place, that is, compared with the areas, or ranges, shown for them on the geological column. But evolutionists don’t think of them as being ‘wrong’ because they have a way of ‘explaining’ every new fossil discovery, no matter where it’s found. All they do is change their story about how evolution happened. Evolution is never questioned."

OF COURSE we will find new fossils outside their previously known range at times. DUH!

What matters, to evolution, is whether a new fossil is found BEFORE any of its possible evolutionary antecedents. And NO we don't find those.

Another shallow straw man.

Come on Russell, how do you buy this crap?
So, similar fossils might be given different species names just because they are found in different strata. Its a mistake, but SO WHAT?

Does the earlier fossil violate the nested hierarchy by existing before any of its possible antecedents? If not, then no problem for evolution. No doubt the record keepers will scurry along sorting out minor errors of classification like this. There are millions of fossils. The only ones you should care about are those that can disprove evolution.

You already know the criteria (as above).
Happy Easter
Happy Easter Russell.

So as usual, I read the crap you guys offer but you are afraid to read what I sent.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126209 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Darth Vader was Luke's real father, and Gollum was originally a hobbit-like fellow called Smeagol who murdered his brother. The moral of the Star Belly Sneech story by Dr. Seuss is an anti-racist one. Achilles was the son of the river goddess Thetis who tried to make him invincible by dipping him in the river Styx as a baby, but she forgot the bit of his ankle covered by her own hand.
Blah blah blah.
Science fiction becomes science fact but it's the plot and the relationships between the characters that are important and true. God is the second Eve and the daughter of Adam who is Satan. The Messiah is Luke and Satan is Darth Vader.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126210 Apr 1, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text> Science fiction becomes science fact but it's the plot and the relationships between the characters that are important and true. God is the second Eve and the daughter of Adam who is Satan. The Messiah is Luke and Satan is Darth Vader.
I agree that a great deal of fiction in the Bible has come to be seen as fact by the gullible. You want to change the story-line in the fables to suit yourself? Be my guest.

Of course, over here in the UAE, witchcraft is still a capital crime. They will defend their nonsense against your nonsense, to the death if necessary! Just be warned.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126211 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The creation of complexity through random mutations.
The ability for bacteria to digest nylonase was a base insertion, therefore by definition an increase in complexity in the genome, and a beneficial new function, achieved by random mutation.

In any case, we can directly see the same process occurring at greatly accelerated rate with computer genetic algorithms. The substrate is different, but the principle is identical. Random mutation can increase complexity.

Even basic logic can tell you this is possible:

1. If I randomly change part of the genetic code, I can add, change, or subtract bases. 3 possibilities, and all can occur randomly.

2. Any change will be either beneficial, neutral, or deleterious.

Therefore, clearly there will be a subset that is both

A/ more complex and
B/ beneficial.

Meaning an increase in complexity is not mysterious, simply a subset of what is possible.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#126212 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The ability for bacteria to digest nylonase was a base insertion, therefore by definition an increase in complexity in the genome, and a beneficial new function, achieved by random mutation.
In any case, we can directly see the same process occurring at greatly accelerated rate with computer genetic algorithms. The substrate is different, but the principle is identical. Random mutation can increase complexity.
Even basic logic can tell you this is possible:
1. If I randomly change part of the genetic code, I can add, change, or subtract bases. 3 possibilities, and all can occur randomly.
2. Any change will be either beneficial, neutral, or deleterious.
Therefore, clearly there will be a subset that is both
A/ more complex and
B/ beneficial.
Meaning an increase in complexity is not mysterious, simply a subset of what is possible.
Wrong, Chimney.
One base substitution or addition is not analogous in any way to the types of mutation that could produce flight in birds or venom in a snake,
In the first place, such a mutation can easily occur by chance.
Secondly, the nylonase example resulted in dramatic survival advantages.
Most traits are defined by multiple nucleotide sequences, sometimes thousands.
Therefore, survival advantages by single nucleotide changes in the evolution of such a pathway are impossible.

Finally, bacterial populations are not analogous to sexually reproducing species. For a mutation (most of which are recessive) to be perpetuated in a species, both organisms that mate must have the same mutation for the change to be conserved in the species.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126213 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that a great deal of fiction in the Bible has come to be seen as fact by the gullible. You want to change the story-line in the fables to suit yourself? Be my guest.
Of course, over here in the UAE, witchcraft is still a capital crime. They will defend their nonsense against your nonsense, to the death if necessary! Just be warned.
Witchcraft and the occult are also condemned by the God of Israel in the bible. We're not too far apart, it's also a capital crime. I also bet you don't celebrate Halloween there! I am not a Christian.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#126214 Apr 1, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the quintessential creationist handwave.
Actually, every layer of the geologic column demands an explanation and the work of geologists over the last 200 years has been to research and work out explanations for the layers that fit with empirical science, not farcical ancient myths.
The conclusion is utterly clear. There is no way the observed layers could form in a year, or even in <10,000 years.
Well, only one - God put them there deliberately to fool us. That is your only alternative.
Time you learned that books can be faked more easily than empirical reality, and if there is God, all of nature is his canvas, not one little book of myths written by scientifically ignorant ancients.
You keep trying to equate evolution with atheism, but your shoddy little lie is that its a book of myths you worship, not God, and evolution has no problem with the concept of God. You are an idolator, and a book of myths is your own Golden Calf.
Same goes for RUSSELL, URBAN COWBOY, DEFENDER, and all your ilk.
I dismiss the geologic column with one wave of the hand because it is a huge unweildy paradigm founded upon layers and layers of unprovable assumptions...
First and foremost... That radiometrically dating rocks provides a reference as to when sediment was deposited and when animals perished.
The 200 years of validation that you image is nothing more than assumptions propping up other assumptions.
You should learn from science...
Russell debunked the geologic column several days ago with the research on T.Rex DNA in "67 million year old strata".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126215 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, Chimney.
One base substitution or addition is not analogous in any way to the types of mutation that could produce flight in birds or venom in a snake,
In the first place, such a mutation can easily occur by chance.
Secondly, the nylonase example resulted in dramatic survival advantages.
Most traits are defined by multiple nucleotide sequences, sometimes thousands.
Therefore, survival advantages by single nucleotide changes in the evolution of such a pathway are impossible.
Finally, bacterial populations are not analogous to sexually reproducing species. For a mutation (most of which are recessive) to be perpetuated in a species, both organisms that mate must have the same mutation for the change to be conserved in the species.
Wrong again HST. Yes, many traits are defined by multiple nucleotide sequences. ID claims have been busted in the past by analyzing those changes and finding that each change improved survivability slightly. All that is required for a trait to be passed on is that it slightly improves the survivability of the animal that receives it. Those improvements add up until you have a large improvement in survivability.

You are too impatient and always want to jump from point A to point J and not visit all of the points in between.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#126216 Apr 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
ID claims have been busted in the past by analyzing those changes and finding that each change improved survivability slightly. All that is required for a trait to be passed on is that it slightly improves the survivability of the animal that receives it. Those improvements add up until you have a large improvement in survivability.
.
Show me scientific research that validates that claim.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126217 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me scientific research that validates that claim.
Nope.

This is a demand for evidence. You have voided your right to demand evidence.

Learn what scientific evidence is first. Then make your demands.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126218 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I dismiss the geologic column with one wave of the hand because it is a huge unweildy paradigm founded upon layers and layers of unprovable assumptions...
First and foremost... That radiometrically dating rocks provides a reference as to when sediment was deposited and when animals perished.
The 200 years of validation that you image is nothing more than assumptions propping up other assumptions.
You should learn from science...
Russell debunked the geologic column several days ago with the research on T.Rex DNA in "67 million year old strata".
Man, your wiring is faulty. Really.

First - regardless of radiometric dating, it was known nearly two centuries ago that most of these deposits could NOT form in 10,000 years. Now we know even better - some of these formations take millions of years.

Russell's T-rex, aside from being a load of bunkum, would not disprove the geologic column in any case.

You are right about one thing. The huge and unwieldy MASS OF EVIDENCE for the great age of the column is NOT something you can wave away with these ridiculous little statements. You sound like some little kid arguing that the moon is really small because he can see it between his extended forefinger and thumb. That is about the level of your arguments in relation to the evidence against you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126219 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, Chimney.
One base substitution or addition is not analogous in any way to the types of mutation that could produce flight in birds or venom in a snake,
Does any biologist imagine that a feathered dinosaur one day just grew wings thanks to a bunch of fortuitous mutations? NO. It occurred by tiny steps. Each small mutation offering a small advantage of some kind and certainly NOT a flight advantage early on. Its is the sharpshooter fallacy that the series of mutations that eventually led to wings was "supposed to produce wings" from the start.
...the nylonase example resulted in dramatic survival advantages.
Yes, beneficial mutations occur, and add information to the genome.
Most traits are defined by multiple nucleotide sequences, sometimes thousands.
Indeed, but as above, nobody is arguing they occurred at the same time or even that the intermediate functions provided were the same as the "final" result.
Therefore, survival advantages by single nucleotide changes in the evolution of such a pathway are impossible.
That does not follow from the first point. Some advantage, no matter how small, and not necessarily toward the "final" adaptation, will be amplified in the population, and further changes will build on that.
Finally, bacterial populations are not analogous to sexually reproducing species. For a mutation (most of which are recessive) to be perpetuated in a species, both organisms that mate must have the same mutation for the change to be conserved in the species.
Some mutations are recessive, some are dominant. Even in a case of a recessive, it can sit there getting more common by its occasional appearance until it comes to dominate.

You ignore the advantage of sexual reproduction. Previously separate beneficial mutations can cross over, sometimes with strongly synergistic multiplier effects. A general amplification effect both positive and negative combined with natural selection will give greater traction to the evolutionary process.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126220 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I dismiss the geologic column with one wave of the hand because it is a huge unweildy paradigm founded upon layers and layers of unprovable assumptions...
Read:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

I have not met one creationist yet with the balls to do so.

Amazing, really.

Written by the world's foremost EX-YEC-creation geologist, a former writer of many creationist papers...
LowellGuy

United States

#126221 Apr 1, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text> Witchcraft and the occult are also condemned by the God of Israel in the bible. We're not too far apart, it's also a capital crime. I also bet you don't celebrate Halloween there! I am not a Christian.
Gathering firewood on the Sabbath was also a capital crime in the Bible.
LowellGuy

United States

#126222 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me scientific research that validates that claim.
Show us scientific research about intelligent design. Any. One condition: needs to be peer-reviewed published research.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126223 Apr 1, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, Chimney.
One base substitution or addition is not analogous in any way to the types of mutation that could produce flight in birds or venom in a snake,

Again demonstrating a profound ignorance of how evolution works and what it actually says.

HTS continues to build his army of straw men.


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> In the first place, such a mutation can easily occur by chance.

Agreed. Point - Evolution!


HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Secondly, the nylonase example resulted in dramatic survival advantages.
Brilliant!!!! Another point for evolution


HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Most traits are defined by multiple nucleotide sequences, sometimes thousands.

..... so......

Realize you don't have a point here yet???

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Therefore, survival advantages by single nucleotide changes in the evolution of such a pathway are impossible.

ROTFLMFAO. You crack me up.

HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Finally, bacterial populations are not analogous to sexually reproducing species. For a mutation (most of which are recessive) to be perpetuated in a species, both organisms that mate must have the same mutation for the change to be conserved in the species.

Um..... no.

I realize that it is very important for creotards to believe this, but it simple isn't true.


Go learn some science, please!



Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The ability for bacteria to digest nylonase was a base insertion, therefore by definition an increase in complexity in the genome, and a beneficial new function, achieved by random mutation.
In any case, we can directly see the same process occurring at greatly accelerated rate with computer genetic algorithms. The substrate is different, but the principle is identical. Random mutation can increase complexity.
Even basic logic can tell you this is possible:
1. If I randomly change part of the genetic code, I can add, change, or subtract bases. 3 possibilities, and all can occur randomly.
2. Any change will be either beneficial, neutral, or deleterious.
Therefore, clearly there will be a subset that is both
A/ more complex and
B/ beneficial.
Meaning an increase in complexity is not mysterious, simply a subset of what is possible.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#126224 Apr 1, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text> Witchcraft and the occult are also condemned by the God of Israel in the bible. We're not too far apart, it's also a capital crime. I also bet you don't celebrate Halloween there! I am not a Christian.

No Kidding?!

/sarcasm
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126225 Apr 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Gathering firewood on the Sabbath was also a capital crime in the Bible.
Doing any type of work on the Sabbath was a capital crime. Keeping the Sabbath was the sign of the Covenant.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 min replaytime 2,033
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 41 min Nohweh 27,376
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 42 min messianic114 219,618
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Subduction Zone 58,355
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Subduction Zone 159,361
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Thu Sentinel 1,758
News Intelligent Design Education Day Feb 19 replaytime 2
More from around the web