Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126447 Apr 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
But that is OK. Now I understand that you allow for the microevolution of primitive vertebrates to humans through a process of cumulative microevolution, the tilobite developments shouldn't be a problem for you.
Nothing could be further from the truth!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126448 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I'm also saying, CHimney, that there is millions of fossils and every one of them suggests that all plants and animals are fully formed in their present state unless they went extinct already. That is what the fossil records is telling us in a clear-cut, unambiguous manner. Millions in the positive and none (0) in the negative. How much clearer can it get? And you don't see this as a problem?
No, the fossil record tells of convergence of currently separate groups as we go back in time. Your bat example does not violate this as the earliest bats you mention occur 80 million years after the emergence of placental mammals. That is a long, long time and plenty of time for bats to develop from a small non-flying mammal. For example the whole sequence from early monkeys to humans is half that long (40mya to the present).

Now, find a bat in deposits that are 200 million years old and you might have a point. In the meantime paleontologists will look for earlier bats and proto-bats in strata between 50 and 130 mya.... Of course if they find something like a bat you will say its a bat and if they find an intermediate, you will just say it was never going to be a bat. And we will ignore your circular thinking.

In fact, if you want to support your creation hypothesis, we would expect to find some of every type of animal from the earliest times, with the range gradually diminishing towards the present.

You cannot explain what we find. We can.

The fossil record supports evolution unambiguously, and geology supports and old earth unambiguously.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126449 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing could be further from the truth!
You claimed it was fish all the way back with only minor modification yet what we find in the Cambrian is only the most primitive chordate possible. Therefore you must agree that if the chordate evolved to every vertebrate we see with only minor modifications, you have finally understood that there is NO separate thing called "macro-evolution", just lots of cumulative micro-evolution operating over long periods.

Exactly what we have been telling you all along!

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#126450 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Dr. Irina Koretshy, Paleontologist, Smithsonian (who specializes in sea lion evolution): "We could not find, we could not name it, the exact animal which make it this missing link between bear-like animal and an eared seal or sea lion"
-Personal interview by Dr. Carl Werner in his book and video, Evolution: The Grand Experiment.
Dr Koretsky's statement predates the discovery of Puijila darwini.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126451 Apr 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
No, the fossil record tells of convergence of currently separate groups as we go back in time. Your bat example does not violate this as the earliest bats you mention occur 80 million years after the emergence of placental mammals. That is a long, long time and plenty of time for bats to develop from a small non-flying mammal.
But the fossil record is totally silent to what you speak. Something is very wrong. Not only just wrong, but it screams out loud the opposite happened.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126452 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
No fossils of the animals that were supposed to have evolved into sea lions have ever been found, despite the fact that many fossil sea lions have been found.
Obviously sea lions have always been sea lions.
Yeah that's what you said about humans, whales, horses, cats, birds, dinosaurs, and tetrapods....until we found the intermediates. Now you are just trolling for gaps in the fossil record while ignoring that the principle is proven. If a bat or a sea lion intermediate turns up, you will just troll for the next one.
Charles Darwin said in "Origin of Species": "A strictly terrestrial animal, by occasionally hunting for food in shallow water, then in streams or lakes, might at last be converted in an animal so thoroughly aquatic as to brace the open ocean."
Now we know that to be wrong. Aquired Characteristics has been proven wrong.
Its Darwin himself who showed that evolution by "acquired characteristics" was wrong, you dimwit. In fact he specifically challenged this proposal with the alternative of natural selection acting on variation. You cannot pretend to understand what you are talking about with such simple mistakes.
So how did a bear or a dog turn into a sea lion? Sea lions can hold their breath and dive to great depths which pressures would crush creatures that are not equipped to do so.
Yawn. Gradually.
So that only leaves genetic mistakes and millions of years so you would expect to at least find one fossil example of this process.
Why would we expect to? You are fond of telling us how hard it is for a fossil to form, but you only use that one when you think it suits you.

But in any case we do, for many creatures, certainly enough to establish the principle of evolution. Only YOU expect us to find the fossil record for EVERY creature. That is just desperation.

How about you explain why bats and sea lions only turn up in the last 1/10th of the fossil record at all - when the nested hierarchy of evolution allows it, and NOT all appearing from the start as they should according to creationism. Not a singe placental mammal from a mouse to a moose the first 7/10ths of the post Cambrian record! But, therapsids showing the development of mammalian characteristics gradually, 230 million years ago. Perfect.

But its all just a great big coincidence!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126453 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But the fossil record is totally silent to what you speak. Something is very wrong. Not only just wrong, but it screams out loud the opposite happened.
Rubbish.

Cats and dogs are convergent to miacids, 25 million years ago.

Humans are convergent to apes, 6-7 million years ago.

Birds are convergent to dinosaurs with now 30+ species of fossils in the 150m year range showing a mix of characteristics.

Tetrapods convergent with lobe finned fish, 385 mya

Dinos convergent with archosaurs.

Mammals convergent with therapsids.

Reptiles convergent with amphibia.

Look up any of these and you will find measurably intermediate species in the fossil record at a time consistent with the nested hierarchy.

Just coincidence!!!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126454 Apr 6, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr Koretsky's statement predates the discovery of Puijila darwini.
OMG that was too easy!

Why doesn't Urban Cowboy check these things before cut and pasting from creatard sites?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126455 Apr 6, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Dr Koretsky's statement predates the discovery of Puijila darwini.
This is a different animal. Seals are not Sea Lions. Nonetheless, there have been 5,000 fossil seals found and so now you have one iffy seal that is claimed to have feet? How did this creature develop the ability to dive 1 mile deep? Remember that the theory of Acquired Characteristics has been falsified. Even a Los Angeles Class Nuclear attack submarine can only dive 800 feet. But a seal can dive over 5,000 feet. If an animal were not designed to dive so deep it would be crushed under tremendous pressure. So how could it possibly acquire that ability? And similarity between two animals groups can not prove evolution because many other animals appear similar but are unrelated. This is really very poor, almost meaningless evidence.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126456 Apr 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Its Darwin himself who showed that evolution by "acquired characteristics" was wrong, you dimwit.
No Chimney. It was 7 years after Darwin died that August Weisman's tail cutting experiment proved Darwin wrong. Dimwit.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126457 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a different animal. Seals are not Sea Lions. Nonetheless, there have been 5,000 fossil seals found and so now you have one iffy seal that is claimed to have feet? How did this creature develop the ability to dive 1 mile deep? Remember that the theory of Acquired Characteristics has been falsified. Even a Los Angeles Class Nuclear attack submarine can only dive 800 feet. But a seal can dive over 5,000 feet. If an animal were not designed to dive so deep it would be crushed under tremendous pressure. So how could it possibly acquire that ability? And similarity between two animals groups can not prove evolution because many other animals appear similar but are unrelated. This is really very poor, almost meaningless evidence.
They all are members of Pinnipedia. And we don't have to understand how they dive to those depths to explain that they evolved. All we have to do is to point out the obvious fact that a seal that can dive a bit deeper than other seals will have the ability to forage for more food. As long as the evolutionary cost is not too high they could evolve to dive even deeper, as long as there was more food available at those greater depths.

All of these years arguing against the theory of evolution and you still don't know how evolution works?

That should be surprising, sadly for creatards it is not.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126458 Apr 6, 2013
I sincerely do believe in the living God and heaven and hell. I have been to heaven in a vision and I have absolutely no fear of death. I have also seen too much scripture literally and completely fulfilled to not believe in God. The Hebrew bible is the word of God (OT) and the rest of it that hasn't happened yet will also be fulfilled.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#126459 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No Chimney. It was 7 years after Darwin died that August Weisman's tail cutting experiment proved Darwin wrong. Dimwit.
No, Lamarck proposed acquired characteristics long before Darwin's theory and Darwin specifically proposed a process that did NOT require the assimilation of acquired characteristics and REFUTED them.

In Darwinian theory, a group of "proto-sea lions" would each vary in many inherited characteristics, one of these being, say, the ability to hold breath for a longer or shorter period. If holding of breath happened to be a survival characteristic because the animals were spending more time in water, then those with the longer-breath-holding advantage would out-survive the others and thus the population as a whole would become on average longer breath-holding. Through propagation of INHERITED advantages.

Acquired characteristics, on the other hand, are the kind that you get when you practice holding your breath every day for as long as possible and increase your ability in that area somewhat. It does NOT mean that your son will automatically be able to hold his breath longer because you practised doing it every day.

That is the difference between ACQUIRED characteristics and INHERITED characteristics. ACQUIRED characteristics do not transform into inherited ones, according to Darwin and verified by experiment.(There may be some modern room for modifying this on the basis of epigenetics. But at least get clear, for once, what Darwin actually said and did not say.)

So it was 7 years after Darwin died that August Weisman's tail cutting experiment proved Darwin RIGHT. Dimwit.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#126460 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
I'm also saying, CHimney, that there is millions of fossils and every one of them suggests that all plants and animals are fully formed in their present state unless they went extinct already. That is what the fossil records is telling us in a clear-cut, unambiguous manner. Millions in the positive and none (0) in the negative. How much clearer can it get? And you don't see this as a problem?
Yes all hominid species are exactly the same for 6 million years.
Homo erectus looked exactly like us.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#126461 Apr 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
How did this creature develop the ability to dive 1 mile deep?
Within a population of early seals that could only dive to 100m, there may have been individuals that could dive to 125m. If this offered some survival/reproductive advantage, subsequent populations would have contained a larger percentage of individuals who could dive a bit deeper. By these incremental increases, a great depth could have been reached.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Remember that the theory of Acquired Characteristics has been falsified.
I'm unfamiliar with this theory. Is it something you made up?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Even a Los Angeles Class Nuclear attack submarine can only dive 800 feet. But a seal can dive over 5,000 feet.
Did you know that seals and submarines are constructed differently?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
If an animal were not designed to dive so deep it would be crushed under tremendous pressure.
If an animal couldn't dive that deep without being crushed, it wouldn't dive that deep. Try to think these things through.

Bonus question(s): Can all seals dive to the depths you've mentioned or is there some variation? If some can't dive as deep, why not?
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126462 Apr 6, 2013
Each species of plant and animal life was created independently. You can "create" new life forms that were not a part of the original act by "grafting" and developing a hybrid. For animal species, procreation is not possible outside of their class of animals. One breed of dog can mate with another breed and produce offspring, but it is against nature for different types animals to inbreed and even if they did, it is not possible for them to produce young. Dogs don't mate with cats, etc.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#126463 Apr 6, 2013
susanblange wrote:
I speak the word of the living God as recorded in the Hebrew bible, I'm not trying to shove anything down your throat the way Christians and Muslims do. The first wise man was friendly, the second logical and the third totally silent. And those are the three stages of wisdom. First you're friendly, then you reason and if that doesn't work you shut up. The Lord will plead with all flesh all the way til the end.
When do you start using reason?

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#126464 Apr 6, 2013
susanblange wrote:
Each species of plant and animal life was created independently. You can "create" new life forms that were not a part of the original act by "grafting" and developing a hybrid. For animal species, procreation is not possible outside of their class of animals. One breed of dog can mate with another breed and produce offspring, but it is against nature for different types animals to inbreed and even if they did, it is not possible for them to produce young. Dogs don't mate with cats, etc.
All life on earth is our cousin, every plant, animal and microbe. This has been verified many different ways. You simply don't want to believe it.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#126465 Apr 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Lamarck proposed acquired characteristics long before Darwin's theory and Darwin specifically proposed a process that did NOT require the assimilation of acquired characteristics and REFUTED them.
In Darwinian theory, a group of "proto-sea lions" would each vary in many inherited characteristics, one of these being, say, the ability to hold breath for a longer or shorter period. If holding of breath happened to be a survival characteristic because the animals were spending more time in water, then those with the longer-breath-holding advantage would out-survive the others and thus the population as a whole would become on average longer breath-holding. Through propagation of INHERITED advantages.
Acquired characteristics, on the other hand, are the kind that you get when you practice holding your breath every day for as long as possible and increase your ability in that area somewhat. It does NOT mean that your son will automatically be able to hold his breath longer because you practised doing it every day.
That is the difference between ACQUIRED characteristics and INHERITED characteristics. ACQUIRED characteristics do not transform into inherited ones, according to Darwin and verified by experiment.(There may be some modern room for modifying this on the basis of epigenetics. But at least get clear, for once, what Darwin actually said and did not say.)
So it was 7 years after Darwin died that August Weisman's tail cutting experiment proved Darwin RIGHT. Dimwit.
You are dead wrong Chimney. Darwin's belief that acquired characteristics were (partly) responsible for evolution continued throughout his lifetime:

In 1875, 16 years after writing The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote this to his cousin, Francis Galton:

"If this implies that many parts are not modified by USE and DISUSE during the life of the individual, I differ widely from you, as every year I come to attribute more and more to such agency." -Charles Darwin

Suck it dimwit.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#126466 Apr 6, 2013
susanblange wrote:
Each species of plant and animal life was created independently. You can "create" new life forms that were not a part of the original act by "grafting" and developing a hybrid. For animal species, procreation is not possible outside of their class of animals. One breed of dog can mate with another breed and produce offspring, but it is against nature for different types animals to inbreed and even if they did, it is not possible for them to produce young. Dogs don't mate with cats, etc.

Humans created about 99% of all dog breeds from wolves.
This is including the Chihuahua, so selective breeding is a forced
selection instead of natural selection and evolution is ensued.
Or will you try to maintain that the Chihuahua is a wolf?

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) 4 min Into The Night 66,938
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 16 min Subduction Zone 216
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 30 min yehoshooah adam 3,485
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 160,909
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Subduction Zone 221,212
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 28,537
What location did life started in? 2 hr Subduction Zone 10
What does the theory of evolution state? 7 hr Dogen 158
More from around the web