Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 177,032

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

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?
LowellGuy

United States

#126539 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.
The "fully formed" bit is nothing more than a misrepresentation
of what evolution is.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#126540 Apr 7, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>when I was a kid there was this woman who lived in our town who cut her baby's head off and mounted it on the tip a shower curtain rod in her front yard for everybody to see. When the cops asked her why she did it she said, "Satan told me to do it!" I hope she's never allowed to be alone with little kids ever again.
Personally, I doubt that any kind of mental disease is curable, just treatable, manageable.
Want to see something interesting on that point?
Folie à Deux
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126541 Apr 8, 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.
Perhaps you mean the puzzle of dino soft tissues?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126542 Apr 8, 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"?
Actually it was the process of rapid burial that left a fossil record

It is entirely consistent with creationism

It has not one iota of support for evolutionism.....NONE

Fully formed creatures

Total stasis

No ancestors

Just as predicted by the creation model
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126543 Apr 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Where are your "thousands of transitionals"?

I've been bleating like an idiot for just ONE...for months and months..

All we have is stasis

Time and time and time and time again....STASIS

I have asked Chimney, which animals have actually evolved

All I got was stony silence

Like I got from you in regards to Adam and Eve being demonstrated as 'fly-in-your-face-Ayala' possible when HLA-DRB introns 1-4 are used

Just ignoring me...won't make me go away....SubDud

Your chicanery is quite transparent

Shreiking Borons could be years before they get their finger out and produce something that could even remotely help you....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126544 Apr 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What progression?
I absolutely second that

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#126545 Apr 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The "fully formed" bit is nothing more than a misrepresentation
of what evolution is.
Reality is a misrepresentation of what evolution is? Agreed!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#126546 Apr 8, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Archaeology and history proves the bibles truthfulness and it has been remarkably well preserved. My God is the living God of Israel and I serve no other. Are you a Christian?
By your logic, Spiderman must be a real person. Try again.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#126547 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are your "thousands of transitionals"?
I've been bleating like an idiot for just ONE...for months and months..
All we have is stasis
Time and time and time and time again....STASIS
I have asked Chimney, which animals have actually evolved
All I got was stony silence
Like I got from you in regards to Adam and Eve being demonstrated as 'fly-in-your-face-Ayala' possible when HLA-DRB introns 1-4 are used
Just ignoring me...won't make me go away....SubDud
Your chicanery is quite transparent
Shreiking Borons could be years before they get their finger out and produce something that could even remotely help you....
Archaeopteryx: bird or dinosaur?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#126548 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was the process of rapid burial that left a fossil record
It is entirely consistent with creationism
It has not one iota of support for evolutionism.....NONE
Fully formed creatures
Total stasis
No ancestors
Just as predicted by the creation model
And it's just a coincidence that there isn't a single human fossil found with dinosaur fossils. And, it's just a coincidence that there isn't a single trilobite fossil found with human fossils. And, it's just a coincidence that triceratops and rhinoceros fossils are never found together. And, it's just a coincidence that velociraptor and ostrich fossils are never found together. There's this "rapid formation" but there's zero mixing of these various types of animal fossils. What prohibited them from ever being mixed together? It can't be escaping some flood, because rhinos and certaopsians would have been similarly slow, and velociraptors and ostriches similarly swift. No, it needs to be something that actually explains the evidence. Oh, they never lived at the same time, and were separated by millions of years? That seems to fit the evidence. I guess we'll just have to disregard your nonsense and go with the scientific explanation instead. So sorry.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126549 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it was the process of rapid burial that left a fossil record
It is entirely consistent with creationism
It has not one iota of support for evolutionism.....NONE
Fully formed creatures
Total stasis
No ancestors
Just as predicted by the creation model
No, it isn't. Your problem is that you cannot explain the rapid burial and be logically consistent.

How did fossils get rapidly buried in the so called creation model?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126550 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are your "thousands of transitionals"?
I've been bleating like an idiot for just ONE...for months and months..
All we have is stasis
Time and time and time and time again....STASIS
I have asked Chimney, which animals have actually evolved
All I got was stony silence
Like I got from you in regards to Adam and Eve being demonstrated as 'fly-in-your-face-Ayala' possible when HLA-DRB introns 1-4 are used
Just ignoring me...won't make me go away....SubDud
Your chicanery is quite transparent
Shreiking Borons could be years before they get their finger out and produce something that could even remotely help you....
We have listed them many times over. It is not our fault that you are an idiot.

If you want to demand evidence you know what you have to do.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126551 Apr 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Archaeopteryx: bird or dinosaur?
Bird

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126552 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Bird
Really, even without a reversed hallux?

Creatards have been on both sides on this particular species which makes it a perfect transitional fossil.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126553 Apr 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There aren't any in there. I'm not lying. Take trilobites as they are representative of the fossil record of invertebrates. There are over 100,000 discovered and no trilobite ancestors found. It's the same story no matter what fossil you examine. There just isn't any evidence. ALl the trilobites are fully formed trilobites and they are fabulously complex and diverse. But there's nothing in the fossil record - no direct ancestors of trilobites - no direct ancestors prior to the Cambrian older than 540 MYA.
And you don't see this as a problem for evolution? Is it really scientific to never see any weaknesses; to refuse any criticisms? Doesn't this make it personal?
We already did the trilobite thing. Have you forgotten already?

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 of Eyes - size - skin color - shape -... 36 min MikeF 4
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 47 min dirtclod 731
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr One way or another 17,016
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr MikeF 150,004
Humans DID evolve from apes! 3 hr Denisova 42
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 3 hr emrenil 37
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 3 hr Denisova 1,377
More from around the web