Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 20 comments on the Feb 24, 2008, www.scientificblogging.com story 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.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126574 Apr 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
OK

You did say something...

What was it again...?

It made no impression whatsoever
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126575 Apr 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever notice that all birds have reptilian scales on their feet? Funny that, huh?
Yes

I giggle about that all the time...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126576 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
A perching, flying bird with feathers is your transitional to perching flying birds with feathers
Are things so very desperate in evo-world?
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2009/11/02/23708...
----------
I personally think Archaeoraptor is a better transitional....
Dino with feathers!
Wow...
Just one small confounding factor.........
Tsk tsk...
You are projecting your own desperation and panic.

Not you, but other creatards have argued in the past that because archeopteryx had a reversed hallux that it definitely was a bird and was not related to dinosaurs. Now we know that it does not have a reversed hallux. Of course the neat thing about transitionals is that they are hard to place.

Archeopteryx is an excellent transitional species whether it is called a bird or a dinosaur. Creationists can't stand that and have to stick with one or the other.

And as I said, now it seems to be more of a dinosaur than a bird:

http://www.science20.com/between_death_and_da...
so sad

Central City, KY

#126577 Apr 8, 2013
NO!!!!!
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#126578 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
An egg tooth is not the same as mandibular and maxillary teeth.

Are teeth a characteristic of birds?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126579 Apr 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
An egg tooth is not the same as mandibular and maxillary teeth.
Are teeth a characteristic of birds?
And tomia are not teeth.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#126580 Apr 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you DID say those experiments debunked Darwin. I will take your backtracking as an apology for an extravagant claim.------
Sorry mate, but your claim that the nested hierarchy is a "one trick pony of no consequence" merely reminds me that no only do you NOT understand it, or its importance, but you have deliberately avoided gaining that understanding. To me that is a conscious avoidance effort because you know that its devastating to your case.
It is MERELY the only structure compatible with common descent and furthermore, its existence in the fossil record and the genome has only ever been explained rationally by common descent. Knowing its that crucial, you prefer to trivialise it rather than try to understand it. And don;t tell me you DO understand it. I know that is false or you would not have made such clunkers as claiming that modern amphibian markers should be more like fish markers than mammal markers etc. Nothing could be more wrong, and more revealing of your ignorance. And its used in peer reviewed research all the time.
Basically, I didn't backtrack. I meant to say it debunked AC although I could have been clearer. Now nested hierarchy is nothing more than saying similar things look the same. It is simply describing and defining things the way they actually are in nature which doesn't prove anything. All you've accomplished by labeling nested hierarchies is describing nature the way it actually is. This does not prove macroevolution anymore than it does creation.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126581 Apr 9, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
Evolutionary regression kids, haven"t you read the dead sea scrolls.
Well Mary Magdalene wrote several books one in particular interest here.
She disposed death and believed that people that were sinners that were subjected to Christian burial would crawl away as worms.
Hinduism too argues the case that people will regress into animals, have you read Hinduya Kush's book eternal flame. He believes that most pen are coming back a dirty dogs, filthy pigs, and wicked jackals.
Reincarnation is a fact but humans can only come back as humans, they have a human spirit. You also can only be reincarnated if you went to heaven, if you went to hell you're history, angels have a choice. Some people have been sent back, like Satan (Adam) and Lucifer (Jesus), they both have a role to play in the end times, so their spirits were preserved.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126582 Apr 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now nested hierarchy is nothing more than saying similar things look the same.
Not saying that at all. NH explain WHY they are similar and in what progression they are similar.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/I...

Excerpt:

Nested Hierarchies

Common ancestry is conspicuous.

Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchiesórather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.

In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of lifeís hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large ďboxĒ entitled: living organisms.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...

Phylogenies trace patterns of shared ancestry between lineages. Each lineage has a part of its history that is unique to it alone and parts that are shared with other lineages.

Similarly, each lineage has ancestors that are unique to that lineage and ancestors that are shared with other lineagesócommon ancestors.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Nested_Hierarch...

"Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates.

Life shows a clear nested hierarchy, at least with regards to multicellular organisms. An animal that produces milk (Mammals), will also have hair, have four limbs, be endothermic (warmblooded) plus possess many other characteristics. Why should this be? Why do no other animals or plants produce milk? Why do no mammals have four limbs plus a pair of wings, like the Pegasus or angels? This fits easily with the idea of common descent, but is not what would be expected from special creation (although it isn't completely at odds with creation either, as the creator(s) could create life in any configuration imaginable).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
All you've accomplished by labeling nested hierarchies is describing nature the way it actually is.
No, it's a description of the PROGRESSION fossils or DNA took over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME -- i.e. their EVOLUTION.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126583 Apr 9, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Greece and Greeks produced Apollo not the other way around. The Lord created the nation of Israel and the Jews not the other way around.
The problem for you is that you "KNOW" the latter only because you read the books written by men as they "produced" the myth of Israel being GOd;s chosen people, etc.

What a shock! An ancient people claiming that their God is the one and only God and their people happens to be the one, FAVORITE people of this God.

That you apparently cannot see through this obvious ruse says a lot about you.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126584 Apr 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you mean the puzzle of dino soft tissues?
They weren't "soft" until the crystallized, rock hard "tissue' was rehydrated.

And yes, we now know that under certain highly unusual circumstances, some tissue can be preserved, sort of.

Not a problem for evolution at all.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126585 Apr 9, 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.
This is say-nothing bullshit, and even YOU must realize that.

Yes, each individual fossil is itself and can be said, in a weird, say-nothing way, to be "fully-formed" in the same way that YOU are"fully-formed" and I am "fully-formed."

The question is Where does that fossil fit into the record of fossils earlier and later than it? And the answer is ALWAYS "into nested hierarchies, as predicted by the theory of Evolution."

Bummer for you Christian guys working your agenda.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126586 Apr 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why else do you not see "nested hierarchy" used as evidence in peer-reviewed research?
.
Seen all the time, whether the actual words "nested hierarchy" are used in the individual cases. That's what they are TALKING about.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you really need is fossils of direct ancestors for all plants or animals;
Never gonna get ALL fossils for all plants and animals. That isn't the way fossilization works, as I'm sure you know well, otherwise you wouldn't MAKE that unreasonable suggestion.

But we don't NEED ALL the examples to demonstrate a logical, believable progression. It's like we have photos taken every minute of someone walking from New York to Los Angeles, more than sufficient to establish the walker's progression from one endpoint to another -- pictures of the walker at famous landmarks along the way, perhaps holding up that day;s newspaper as he walks, etc.

Your response, which is a pathetic one really, is to claim we cannot prove he walked from NY to LA unless we have a complete unbroken film record of the entire journey.

Not possible and also not needed.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126587 Apr 9, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a lot to ask of random chance...
Natural selection is not "random chance."

Evolution is gene variation by mutation, sexual recombination and genetic drift PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.

You could say that there seems to be at least some random chance in gene mutation, but not in the other factors.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#126588 Apr 9, 2013
NO! EVOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS AS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

Any teaching, pseudo-science or pseudo-scientific method that rejects absolute truths should not be accepted by ANY individual who attend any schools on this planet! Schools can each what-ever they want, but individuals who hold on to absolute truths should REJECT such teachings INCLUNDING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION because it is a pseudo-science!

You are free to teach whatever you want! Itís up to the individual to decide what an absolute truth is or what not an absolute truth is because schools donít teach this!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126589 Apr 9, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
NO! EVOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS AS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
Any teaching, pseudo-science or pseudo-scientific method that rejects absolute truths should not be accepted by ANY individual who attend any schools on this planet! Schools can each what-ever they want, but individuals who hold on to absolute truths should REJECT such teachings INCLUNDING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION because it is a pseudo-science!
You are free to teach whatever you want! Itís up to the individual to decide what an absolute truth is or what not an absolute truth is because schools donít teach this!
It is not taught as an "absolute truth". Scientists know that "absolute truth" cannot be demonstrated.

Your moronic approach to science would have not got us past the caveman stage.

There is a reason that science is taught the way it is taught. Science works. You could not be arguing here if it were not for scientific advances that would laugh at your absolute truth. So by using the science that disagrees with you vehemently you are showing that you are a hypocrite.

Can you prove your "absolute truth" without using circular arguments with flawed assumptions? We of course know that you cannot.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#126590 Apr 9, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
NO! EVOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS AS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
Any teaching, pseudo-science or pseudo-scientific method that rejects absolute truths should not be accepted by ANY individual who attend any schools on this planet! Schools can each what-ever they want, but individuals who hold on to absolute truths should REJECT such teachings INCLUNDING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION because it is a pseudo-science!
You are free to teach whatever you want! Itís up to the individual to decide what an absolute truth is or what not an absolute truth is because schools donít teach this!
Science does not teach "Absolute Truth".

It never has, and never will. What it DOES teach is the length and breath of knowledge of the natural universe according to the evidence discovered to date.

As it pertains to Biology, the Theory of Evolution **IS** the best explanation for the evidence we have.

Otherwise, we'll have to resort to individuals such as yourself to determine what "Absolute Truth" is.

....and that is a scarey proposition.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126591 Apr 9, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
NO! EVOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS AS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!
Any teaching, pseudo-science or pseudo-scientific method that rejects absolute truths should not be accepted by ANY individual who attend any schools on this planet! Schools can each what-ever they want, but individuals who hold on to absolute truths should REJECT such teachings INCLUNDING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION because it is a pseudo-science!
You are free to teach whatever you want! Itís up to the individual to decide what an absolute truth is or what not an absolute truth is because schools donít teach this!
No, public schools are NOT free to teach anything they want. Get a grip, Curtis.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#126592 Apr 9, 2013
<edit> "scary"
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126593 Apr 9, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem for you is that you "KNOW" the latter only because you read the books written by men as they "produced" the myth of Israel being GOd;s chosen people, etc.
What a shock! An ancient people claiming that their God is the one and only God and their people happens to be the one, FAVORITE people of this God.
That you apparently cannot see through this obvious ruse says a lot about you.
Nothing was written until Moses came and recorded the Torah as dictated by God. There was only an oral tradition that was handed down for generations beginning with Abraham. Actually, God chose the Semitic peoples to reveal himself to and this includes most of the nations in the middle east. God chose Abraham to start his cult and that's what makes them special.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr messianic114 161,082
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 3 hr In Six Days 1,409
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 5 hr Denisova 13,673
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Denisova 18,697
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 hr MikeF 141,290
No Place For ID? Sat GTID62 1
Guadeloupe Woman Found (1812 (Mar '10) Apr 23 MikeF 73
More from around the web