Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179708 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.

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#127603 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So all the other radiometric readings are also wrong. Got it.
Yes, everybody's wrong including Albert Einstein and all those geologists are stupid. You're the only one that's right in the history of the universe. You should be happy that YOU'RE the only sane person to have ever existed!

“Jon Snow”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

The King in the Nor±h

#127604 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean it works very good as long as it doesn't go against evolution. Right?
I mean it has nothing to do with evolution , it has to do with precisely dating the age of carbon in things the limitations of the method, anomaly's due to contaminants and radiation and solar flares that skew the figures. Evolution has many other converging evidences that show it's validity. Your broom ,
will soon be no more than a stick.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#127605 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So all the other radiometric readings are also wrong. Got it.
Once again grasping at straws.

Contamination can only decrease the apparent age of a sample not increase it.
Hence if it read 60,000 years it can't be less.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127606 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does. You can't explain why every ancient sample tested still has some C14 in it. You can't blame contamination if it is measured consistently every time. It's in there because it hasn't had enough time to decay completely. This completely refutes the whole theory because your "millions and billions" is precluded based on the the known half-life of C14 and it's continued presence.

Sorry, but C-14 has a baseline (or residual) at the same level as background radiation. It will never be zero. It simply has a point where signal cannot be distinguished from noise.

If you UNDERSTOOD radiometric dating you would not have this silly issue.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127607 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one who's not keeping up. So you want a secular source? No problem (even though those sources can't always be relied on and must be taken with a grain of salt).
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007NIMPB.259.....

Sorry, again you do not understand enough and did not look at follow-up research. Here is the bust.

Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Research, B, Volume 259, issue 1 (June, 2007), p. 282-287.
ISSN: 0168-583X DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.239
Elsevier Science

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/car...

So, as you can see from the above, the combination of poor methods and contamination led to false results.

" Baumgardner and the RATE team are to be commended for tackling the subject, but their “intrinsic radiocarbon” explanation does not work. The previously published radiocarbon AMS measurements can generally be explained by contamination, mostly due to sample chemistry."

"Why do only some materials show evidence of this intrinsic radiocarbon? Why does some anthracite and diamond exist with no measurable intrinsic radiocarbon?"

" These and many other considerations are inconsistent with the RATE hypothesis of “intrinsic radiocarbon” but are consistent with contamination and background.“Intrinsic radiocarbon” is essentially a “radiocarbon-of-the-gaps” theory."

Sorry, no dice.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127608 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, I don't talk to children on the Internet.

Interesting denial out of nowhere. Freud would have a field day on that one.

Guilty conscious?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127609 Apr 21, 2013
On related note to Urb's claims that "sodomy is yucky" and his complete dodge of my question whether he ever participated in it. There are some positive aspects to it. Just ask Heather Locklear:

http://www.tmz.com/2013/04/17/heather-locklea...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127610 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
So...if the amount of C14 remaining in diamonds proves that the Earth could not be much older than 100,000 years or so (and evolution impossible), and giving every opportunity for the evotards to respond...

Already refuted many times and again in my last few posts.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#127611 Apr 21, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again grasping at straws.
Contamination can only decrease the apparent age of a sample not increase it.
Hence if it read 60,000 years it can't be less.
How convenient. LOL!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127612 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"The discovery of this process has serious implications for creation biology, given the fact that major phenotypic changes can occur without the Darwinian process of genetic mutation and natural selection."
http://videolectures.net/sep09_jablonka_eifd/

Actually it may just demonstrate ANOTHER mechanism for evolution.

Not exactly helpful to the creotard camp.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127613 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
"Epigenetics sheds more and more light on how God made this world and the brilliance of His design. It provides some expected evidence into the function of so-called junk DNA. It also is important to creationists because it provides a potential mechanism for the stability of the created kinds (epigenetic inheritance) without reducing the potential for variation among species (DNA inheritance). Epigenetic inheritance increases the known complexity of the cell immeasurably, thus providing more evidence for design and fodder for creationists in the evolutionary debate."
http://creationwiki.org/Epigenetic_inheritanc...

Reference please?

Ahem,.... of course I meant SCIENTIFIC reference, please.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127614 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please, humor me...

Sure. You have been a source of humor for us for years.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127615 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's essentially a much more powerful biological mechanism that far out-shadows any possible positive/beneficial mutation for macro-change. I thought that was obvious. As we really have never observed a true beneficial mutation, i.e., one that creates new/increases information, and it's occurrence even theoretically is such a remote likelihood, there was really only just a very slight opening for it to account for macroevolution anyway.

Sorry, but this is not true. You are just arming your enemy with another possible mechanism for evolution (a potential pathway, even if not a confirmed mechanism).

You can keep trying. We can add this to your list of failed reasons why microevolution never happened (but in fact added even more proof for evolution).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127616 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Either you don't understand it or you are just ignoring or denying it. It negates the effects entirely. Use a thought experiment. Think of any past or future evolutionary change of an organism or creature. Epigenetics explains it. Mutation and natural selection doesn't.

We have never found any proof of Epigenetics based evolution. We do have proof for the established mechanisms of evolution.

Epigenetics does not provide an explanation for the ACTUAL changes in genetics that have been observed.

So, if you are successful in adding epigenetics to the arsenal of evolution, some more work needs to be done.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127617 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Identical twins have exactly same DNA sequence yet are very different looking and acting. Evolution can't explain that, but epigenetics can.

Evolution can explain that. Epigenetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

So you are not saying anything new.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127618 Apr 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution can explain that. Epigenetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
So you are not saying anything new.
Actually I believe that Urb was conflating identical twins, which almost always do tend to look alike, and fraternal twins. I don't think his thought process would go so far as to see what would happen if identical twins were raised in different environments.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127619 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Totally wrong. Similar how? They're both human? They're completely different people.

But they have the same DNA. That does not mean the genes will be expressed in exactly the same way.

You need to take a basic genetics class after your little intro to biology class.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127620 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So all the other radiometric readings are also wrong. Got it.

No. You have supplied no evidence of such as such evidence does not exist.

The retesting under more controlled conditions using better methods and eliminating contamination demonstrated the effect disappeared. Ergo it was attributable to experimenter "error" (being generous).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#127621 Apr 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean it works very good as long as it doesn't go against evolution. Right?

It means that these methods, while not fool proof (because fools are so ingenious), work very well in the real world, ASSUMING that the samples are not contaminated, one is not working at the extreme end of the radiometic timeline limits, and that the samples were properly tested.

A screw is one of the simplest machines but I have managed to strip them and even break them by using the wrong methods on them. Proof that you can screw anything up.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#127622 Apr 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that these methods, while not fool proof (because fools are so ingenious), work very well in the real world, ASSUMING that the samples are not contaminated, one is not working at the extreme end of the radiometic timeline limits, and that the samples were properly tested.
A screw is one of the simplest machines but I have managed to strip them and even break them by using the wrong methods on them. Proof that you can screw anything up.
Actually wouldn't that be proof that you can't screw everything up?

And I too have broken off my share of screw heads. There is a reason that it is called hard rock maple.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 min scientia potentia... 154,640
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Brian_G 48,440
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 33 min scientia potentia... 216,630
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 hr ChristineM 23,486
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... 20 hr It aint necessari... 638
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 21 hr Timmee 7
Science News (Sep '13) Fri _Susan_ 3,980
More from around the web