Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story
LowellGuy

United States

#126518 Apr 7, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text> "The simple believe every word but the prudent looks well to his going" Snakes and donkeys do not speak, it is against nature. The serpent was Adam and Balaams ass communicated but did not literally speak.
Adam was a shapeshifter. That sounds reasonable.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#126519 Apr 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Or I could point out that T-rex' ancestors could be among the many other tyrannosoids we have found in strata preceding T-rex, but we cannot be sure which one. Nevertheless its obvious that T-rex did not pop up out of nowhere in the last 20 million years of the Cretaceous - it had obvious forerunners.
Tyrannosaurus was a latecomer also, there were many
tyrannosaurus like dinos in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. Such as this fellow who lived hundreds of millions of years before T-rex , but is considered a predecessor to the larger theropods.

http://topnews.co.uk/217666-researchers-disco...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#126520 Apr 7, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>You're talking about mythology and I believe in no other God than the God of Israel. There are a lot of gods in the world and they are all idols, I believe in the living God who created the heavens and the earth.
You are talking about mythology too.

"God" is a concept.

"The living God of Israel etc" is a mythology. You just happen to believe in this mythology and not say, the Greek or the Zoroastrian or the Hindu.
defender

United States

#126521 Apr 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>He does not say that such modification becomes INHERITED by the offspring, UC. Suck it right back.

The core of Darwin's theory is that inherited variation is selected and passed on. Not acquired characteristics. That was Lamarck's theory.
Selected how?... What intelligence decides what is beneficial for the species? And why would it evolve? Mutation for the offspring has no benefit for the parent... How could such a mechanism come to be without a intelligent design?... Random chance?.. Science says no so all you're left with is Harry Potter's magic pixy dust... Talk in circles all you want at the end of the day it's always the same result... Even if... Even if.. ToE held true it still had to be designed...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126522 Apr 7, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Selected how?... What intelligence decides what is beneficial for the species? And why would it evolve? Mutation for the offspring has no benefit for the parent... How could such a mechanism come to be without a intelligent design?... Random chance?.. Science says no so all you're left with is Harry Potter's magic pixy dust... Talk in circles all you want at the end of the day it's always the same result... Even if... Even if.. ToE held true it still had to be designed...
"Selection" is a synonym for "Ability to pass on ones genes". So if a creature is able to reproduce successfully and its progeny can do the same that group is "selected".

And yes, random mutation is a byproduct of the ability to pass on ones genes. There will always be some small errors. That causes variation. Variation adds to the robustness of a species. When a new unforeseen problem arises the variation of a species is what allows it to cope with it. Continued changes in environment can and has driven evolution.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126523 Apr 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are talking about mythology too.
"God" is a concept.
"The living God of Israel etc" is a mythology. You just happen to believe in this mythology and not say, the Greek or the Zoroastrian or the Hindu.
Israel is not a myth and the Jews are not a myth. God established Israel. God also sent prophets to warn and guide Israel about falling into sin and idolatry. This God will come and live on earth and it's always been her intent. When we witness God, we'll know there is a God. The OT will be literally and completely fulfilled. The bible is about God the Messiah.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#126524 Apr 7, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Israel is not a myth and the Jews are not a myth. God established Israel. God also sent prophets to warn and guide Israel about falling into sin and idolatry. This God will come and live on earth and it's always been her intent. When we witness God, we'll know there is a God. The OT will be literally and completely fulfilled. The bible is about God the Messiah.
Correct , Israel is not a myth and the Jews are not a myth. OK BUT.....God established Israel , this is highly imaginative, As far as we know...

The UN established Israel in 1948.
With a little help from the pentagon.
I am your bright and morning star!
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126525 Apr 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Correct , Israel is not a myth and the Jews are not a myth. OK BUT.....God established Israel , this is highly imaginative, As far as we know...
The UN established Israel in 1948.
With a little help from the pentagon.
I am your bright and morning star!
God does things thru human mechanisms, The Jews were originally the authors of their own fate and God uses people to accomplish his goals, ie Abraham and Moses. Lucifer means "morning star" or "light bringer" and this was Jesus claim in Rev. 22:16
defender

United States

#126526 Apr 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>"Selection" is a synonym for "Ability to pass on ones genes". So if a creature is able to reproduce successfully and its progeny can do the same that group is "selected".

And yes, random mutation is a byproduct of the ability to pass on ones genes. There will always be some small errors. That causes variation. Variation adds to the robustness of a species. When a new unforeseen problem arises the variation of a species is what allows it to cope with it. Continued changes in environment can and has driven evolution.
That's a lot to ask of random chance...
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#126527 Apr 7, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a lot to ask of random chance...
But is not JUST random chance is it.

Seriously, this is the simple stuff - if you don't understand the basics then how can you pretend you can argue against evolution?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126528 Apr 7, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
But is not JUST random chance is it.
Seriously, this is the simple stuff - if you don't understand the basics then how can you pretend you can argue against evolution?
What else is it, Mugwump?

Genetic drift?
Random mutations?

It is simple

It is easy to understand

Which is precisely why descent with modification is impossible as an explanation for single celled organisms becoming complex multicellular creatures

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#126529 Apr 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rather, I think it you who is being pigheaded here.
You can see the entire chapter in which this quote is embedded:
http://www.dailylit.com/books/on-the-origin-o...
In this chapter which continues for several pages, Darwin accepts that acquired characteristics may play some role (i.e. which was the current thinking of the time), but he is specifically arguing IN OPPOSITION or at least IN ADDITION that his NEW THEORY of natural selection acting on inherited, not acquired, variation, explains evolution better than this.
You would understand this if you read his whole book instead of relying on creatard site quote mines.
Darwin specifically proposed in Origin of the Species, a NEW theory, a NEW mechanism by which organisms could evolve. You are correct - he did not outright reject Lamarkism, BUT
That was NOT Darwin's theory!
THEREFORE - when you come along as you did and say that the rat's tail experiments specifically debunked Darwin's theory, you are WRONG. Its not pigheaded to say this. Its a fact. Perhaps I overreacted because its just more annoying creationist twisting, I will grant that.
Experiments disproving acquired characteristics do NOT disprove Darwin's theory of natural selection, they disprove Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics. Darwin would probably shrug and say, OK, well, that's even BETTER for MY theory, evolution by acquired characteristics is completely ruled out!
PS: why do you think Darwin's theory was so revolutionary, if it was not different to what Lamarck and even Aristotle had already proposed? Precisely this. The essential mechanism was different.
PPS: Nested Hierarchy. Don't scream, just try understanding it finally.
Based on his statements, it is clear that Darwin accepted acquired characteristics as one of the mechancisms throughout his lifetime.

I never meant to say it his whole theory of evolution was overturned by the tail-cutting experiment but at least part (AC) of what Darwin thought responsible was.

You said Darwin rejected and even refuted acquired characteristics which couldn't be further from the truth. He stated in his Origins book that these were inherited and in a letter to his cousin he said he believed in it more than ever. It was only several years after his death that the tail-cutting experiment proved acquired characteristics wrong.

(If you thought I said it refuted Darwin's theory of evolution that it is not what I meant to say.) I meant to say it refuted acquired characteristics which should have been obvious. Sorry I called you names but you always start it don't you?

And I promise I won't scream went you go off on your one-trick-pony, nested hierarchies. I just ignore it because - no offense - it's just that it's inconsequential. It sounds good but has no real teeth in it. You need real evidence like fossils and observing macrochange happen. Real evidence. Not comparing similarities which by the way has also been proved wrong.

Why else do you not see "nested hierarchy" used as evidence in peer-reviewed research?

What you really need is fossils of direct ancestors for all plants or animals; what I need is plants and animal fossils first appearing fully formed: I win by a landslide. You need numerous beneficial genetic mutations creating new organs, tissues, function; I need the complete absense of same and evidence of genetic entropy and loss of information resulting in disease which I have a plethora of: I win.

Now moving onto "evolution" of Whales....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126530 Apr 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Tyrannosaurus was a latecomer also, there were many
tyrannosaurus like dinos in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. Such as this fellow who lived hundreds of millions of years before T-rex , but is considered a predecessor to the larger theropods.
http://topnews.co.uk/217666-researchers-disco...
Dont you just wish things were easy and seamless in evo-world?

Instead of providing answers that you would just love to be true

".....the new dinosaur fossil has joined a growing list of fossil finds that just do not fit the evolutionary picture"

----------
So

Now Eoraptor has been displaced as an ancestor?

"Evolutionists have variously proposed it as the ancestor of two of the three major groups of dinosaurs: ornithischians, which included the Triceratops and Hadrosaurs; and saurischians, which included sauropods like Apatosaurus, and theropods like Tyrannosaurus."

----------
Interesting.....
----------

"After the discovery of Eodromaeus, Sereno and his colleagues abandoned Eoraptor as the common ancestor of dinosaurs. In a study published in the technical journal Science, the authors said that Eoraptor should now be considered the ancestor of sauropods. This "differs from previous phylogenetic assessments of this early dinosaur as a basal saurischian or basal theropod."

----------
As per-->

http://crev.info/2011/01/cute_dinosaur_forced...

"When interpretation outruns the bones, it’s helpful to go to the original source material. "

Let's check the original paper--->

---Martinez, Sereno, Alcober et al,“A Basal Dinosaur from the Dawn of the Dinosaur Era in Southwestern Pangaea,” Science, 14 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6014 pp. 206–210, DOI: 10.1126/science.1198467.

A glaring observation from their chart is decreasing diversity with time.

If we take their long-age interpretation of the formation, the evidence contradicts evolutionary predictions – and their paper basically admits it [bracketed portions added]:

"One explanation for the rise of dinosaurs has been that a few key features led gradually to the competitive dominance of dinosaurs [i.e., traditional Darwinism].

"This view has been overtaken by a hypothesis of noncompetitive replacement [stuff happens], in which their rise is split into two successive episodes of extinction and noncompetitive infilling of vacant ecospace [opportunity-knocks Darwinism].

"In the replacement hypothesis, the earliest dinosaurs are regarded as particularly rare (1 to 3% of terrestrial vertebrates), their abundance and diversity increasing successively at the Carnian-Norian and Triassic-Jurassic boundaries coincident with mass extinction of rhynchosaurs, traversodontid cynodonts, and dicynodonts and later of (noncrocodyliform) crurotarsal archosaurs.

"In contrast, the fossil record from Ischigualasto indicates that early dinosaurs in the latter half of the Carnian (231 to 228 Ma) were more common and diverse than previously thought, equaling the percentage of dinosaurian genera in the late Norian fauna from the overlying Los Colorados Formation (Fig. 4).

"Thus, in terms of taxonomic diversity, dinosaurs did not increase their percentage among terrestrial vertebrates toward the end of the Triassic in southwestern Pangaea"

----------

Not only do theropods have no known non-theropod ancestor, but the study's authors wrote, "The earliest dinosaurs had already evolved the most functionally important trophic and locomotor features characterizing ornithischians, sauropodomorphs, and theropods".

---- Martinez et al, A Basal Dinosaur.

"As such, the suddenness of the occurrence of fully formed dinosaurs, already arrayed into their major categorized forms, is "like a Cambrian radiation in terms of tremendous diversity," according to Sereno

--Parsell, Scientist's Finds Spur New Thinking

----------

Cont.....

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#126532 Apr 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on his statements, it is clear that Darwin accepted acquired characteristics as one of the mechancisms throughout his lifetime.
I never meant to say it his whole theory of evolution was overturned by the tail-cutting experiment but at least part (AC) of what Darwin thought responsible was.
You said Darwin rejected and even refuted acquired characteristics which couldn't be further from the truth. He stated in his Origins book that these were inherited and in a letter to his cousin he said he believed in it more than ever. It was only several years after his death that the tail-cutting experiment proved acquired characteristics wrong.
(If you thought I said it refuted Darwin's theory of evolution that it is not what I meant to say.) I meant to say it refuted acquired characteristics which should have been obvious. Sorry I called you names but you always start it don't you?
And I promise I won't scream went you go off on your one-trick-pony, nested hierarchies. I just ignore it because - no offense - it's just that it's inconsequential. It sounds good but has no real teeth in it. You need real evidence like fossils and observing macrochange happen. Real evidence. Not comparing similarities which by the way has also been proved wrong.
Why else do you not see "nested hierarchy" used as evidence in peer-reviewed research?
What you really need is fossils of direct ancestors for all plants or animals; what I need is plants and animal fossils first appearing fully formed: I win by a landslide. You need numerous beneficial genetic mutations creating new organs, tissues, function; I need the complete absense of same and evidence of genetic entropy and loss of information resulting in disease which I have a plethora of: I win.
Now moving onto "evolution" of Whales....
Exactly, and also why you will never find that Precambrian rabbit.
But you creationists still look for the crocoduck.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#126533 Apr 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont you just wish things were easy and seamless in evo-world?
Instead of providing answers that you would just love to be true
".....the new dinosaur fossil has joined a growing list of fossil finds that just do not fit the evolutionary picture"
When we are talking about over 250 million years ago and can only rely on fossils , it is quite a puzzle to figure out.

But we have enough pieces of the puzzle to clearly see that evolution is a fact.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#126534 Apr 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I looked at Appendix B, dinosaur evolution chart of Werner's "Evolution, the Grand Experiment" and its easy to see the flaw.
In my previous post, the evolution of Tyrannosauroids is discussed, along with the trends and changes occurring over many millions of years. Increase in size, reduction of the forelimbs and number of toes etc...but in the books chart, its just lumped the whole 78 specimens as "Tyrannosaurs" as if they were all the same and there was no progression. Its simply false.
That would be like throwing all the apes and hominid fossils we have together and saying that they are all the same thing, regardless of when dated, any trends, etc.
So of course there is no progression - if you ignore the progression!
What progression?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126535 Apr 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
When we are talking about over 250 million years ago and can only rely on fossils , it is quite a puzzle to figure out.
But we have enough pieces of the puzzle to clearly see that evolution is a fact.
Yes, the process of evolution left a spotty hole filled record. The problem for creationists is that the holes keep getting filled by fossils that fit the evolutionary paradigm and creationists have yet to come up with even a hypothesis that explains the fossil record from a creationist point of view.

In other words creationists have nothing and yet they still dare to complain about the evidence for evolution.

Can you say "hypocrite"?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#126536 Apr 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
I looked at Appendix B, dinosaur evolution chart of Werner's "Evolution, the Grand Experiment" and its easy to see the flaw.
The chart is from the Chicago Field Museum. All the zeros marked on all the branches leading to the far right-hand side where all the dinosaurs are listed were provided by the experts themselves. Are you saying all the experts are wrong? That you have direct ancestor fossils that they don't know about? Come on man, give me a break.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#126537 Apr 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the process of evolution left a spotty hole filled record. The problem for creationists is that the holes keep getting filled by fossils that fit the evolutionary paradigm and creationists have yet to come up with even a hypothesis that explains the fossil record from a creationist point of view.
In other words creationists have nothing and yet they still dare to complain about the evidence for evolution.
Can you say "hypocrite"?
It's quite the opposite. We have everything and you have nothing. Every fossil ever found made its first appearance fully formed. If creation is true that is what we would expect. That's millions of fossils to our credit. What do you have? Not a single true transitional. A million to one in our favor.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126538 Apr 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's quite the opposite. We have everything and you have nothing. Every fossil ever found made its first appearance fully formed. If creation is true that is what we would expect. That's millions of fossils to our credit. What do you have? Not a single true transitional. A million to one in our favor.
Breaking the Ninth Commandment again.

So what is the testable hypothesis for creation?

What do you mean by that nonsense term "fully formed"? As others have pointed out you don't understand evolution and expect a crocoduck.

We have thousands of transitional fossils, you have a bias against them. What is wrong with the transitional fossils you have been linked to you countless times?

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Dogen 132,826
How would creationists explain... 27 min Dogen 345
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 6 hr MikeF 546
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 9 hr Brian_G 13,622
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Fri Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
More from around the web