Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178697 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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129192 May 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, totally refuted.
http://creation.com/sediba-not-human-ancestor
Wait, you're pitting information from *snicker* "Creation Ministries" against that of the Smithsonian? Wow, you are a total moron.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129193 May 6, 2013
The straw grasping by creatard sites is very similar to the straw grasping by our creatards here when it comes to Tyre.

What is your problem Urb?

You don't see why this find both reinforces the assumptions made for Lucy, the human like feet etc. for parts that were missing. Remember how all of the creatard howled at that?

Every year we find more and more evidence for evolution and the creatards have yet to come off of the starting blocks.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129194 May 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
The straw grasping by creatard sites is very similar to the straw grasping by our creatards here when it comes to Tyre.
What is your problem Urb?
You don't see why this find both reinforces the assumptions made for Lucy, the human like feet etc. for parts that were missing. Remember how all of the creatard howled at that?
Every year we find more and more evidence for evolution and the creatards have yet to come off of the starting blocks.
His problem is that he wouldn't know a valid source if it jumped up and down in front of him with EEE breasts.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#129195 May 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, totally refuted.
http://creation.com/sediba-not-human-ancestor

You call that whining word salad protest of paleolithic anthropology a refute? That was a creationist crybaby grasping at straws, um kinda like you.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129196 May 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no levels either. In your mind, they are not there because you have defined the layers according to your own terms. There is no such thing as layers. When it comes to fossils, there is only catastrophy. You have to compare apples to apples. Not particular fossils to evolutionary uniformatarian assumptions. Creation/flood fossils appear where they wound up after the mud dried. Evolution fossils are found anywhere and their layer is defined to match the theory.
Tell this rubbish to a geologist. No levels? The "levels" were recognised long before anyone had any idea how old they were, and long before the theory of evolution. Ever seen pictures of the Grand Canyon? See those horizontal stratifications?

As for your claim that fossils are found "anywhere", it's utterly ridiculous. There are no mammal or bird fossils at all in the lowest 2/3rds of the post cambrian layering. Anywhere. In. The. World. Ever. But there are plenty of other creatures - all more primitive.

And, you do not even know the meaning of the word "uniformitarian", since you misuse the term continually. It is the assumption that the same physical principles applied in the past as they do today. That is not incompatible with periods of extreme vulcanism, asteroid strikes, and ice ages. Nor, of course with corresponding periods of evolutionary change and relative stability, as evolution is adaptation to environment and rapid changes in the environment correspond to more rapid changes in living populations.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129197 May 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You obvious know nothing about comparative anatomy to make such an asinine statement. Tell me specifically what makes an australopithecus skull a pre-human ancestor and not simply morphologic variability within the chimpanzee species.
Standing alone, you might claim that the early Australopiths were merely morphological variations on an ape. And you would be right!

But then the later ones like Sedibus are merely variations on the early ones, even further from a conventional ape.

Early H. Habilis are merely morphological variations on Sedibus.
And then H. erectus is merely a variation on Habilis.
And Antecessor a variation on Erectus.
And Heideburgensis a variation on Antecessor.
And Sapiens a morphological variant on Heidelburgensis.

That is what we have been saying all along. Its a continuum.

Glad you agree, thanks for playing.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129198 May 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet another dodge.
Blindly posting a link proves nothing.
You haven't explained anything because you don't understand the foundation of what you believe in.
So rather than refer you to a link by an expert in the field, you would rather SZ tried to make it up as he went along? That's interesting. It means you would rather try to pick holes in a layman's interpretation, than look directly at any expert reference.

You have so much better odds picking holes in second hand explanations to defend your idiocy, than you do when confronted with the hard data by the experts, after all.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129199 May 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your parroted response proves nothing, because everything you say is subjective. Tell me what the angle of the pelvis is that defines a human pelvis and at what point it becomes an ape pelvis...
What do you means its brain case is more human than a chimp? How so? Do you have any clue as to the limits of morphologic variablity that exists in human skulls?
One freaky small brained fossil might be attributable to human variation, such as a disease.

A continuum of fossils with brain size gradually increasing from an ape's 400cc to a human's 1350cc, over several million years, accompanied by other changes in the skeleton and dentition that measurably follow the same trends....cannot be explained away in this fashion.

You also asked the absurd question over what "dividing line" would separate the ape pelvis from a human one. And again, its not a question of a single value dividing line. Its a question of a normal range that moves towards bipedalism. If Australopiths had both a pelvis closer to the human range than the normal ape one, PLUS the exit point of the spinal column more aligned to an upright posture, PLUS other small changes in the arms and legs consistent with bipedalism (which they do), then wake up buddy. The fossils are telling you something, whether you like it or not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129200 May 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, totally refuted.
http://creation.com/sediba-not-human-ancestor
Except that your article does not actually refute it. I read it.

1. A bunch of whining about evolutionary hype. Then...

2. The point that experts are arguing over whether its really Homo or Australopith (again, exactly what one would expect in TRANSITIONS)

3. The argument by the author that its Australopith features outweigh the Homo ones so its really an Australopith (see (2) above).

The fact is, it's a creature less like the early Australopiths or and more like the earliest Homo (habilis).

Wake up. Thats exactly what we would expect. Its called a continuum of change.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129201 May 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You blindly post links without logically defending any of your claims. All you know how to do is defer to cherry-picked "authorities" who sit around making wild unsubstantiated conjectures. None of the links you posted are convincing. They're all 100% BS. I'm asking for science, not evo-babbling. If can't personally defend any of those links, you have nothing.
Yes, he cherry picked from within the 99.85% of biologists who agree with evolution. How devilishly sneaky.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129202 May 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You are nothing less than a spineless go-with-the-flow atheist.
Its always funny hearing an accusation of spinelessness from someone who is so afraid of death that he will deny all of biology, geology, cosmology, and physics in order to maintain the fairy tale that if he promises to be a good boy, God will let him live forever.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129203 May 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell this rubbish to a geologist. No levels? The "levels" were recognised long before anyone had any idea how old they were, and long before the theory of evolution. Ever seen pictures of the Grand Canyon? See those horizontal stratifications?
As for your claim that fossils are found "anywhere", it's utterly ridiculous. There are no mammal or bird fossils at all in the lowest 2/3rds of the post cambrian layering. Anywhere. In. The. World. Ever. But there are plenty of other creatures - all more primitive.
And, you do not even know the meaning of the word "uniformitarian", since you misuse the term continually. It is the assumption that the same physical principles applied in the past as they do today. That is not incompatible with periods of extreme vulcanism, asteroid strikes, and ice ages. Nor, of course with corresponding periods of evolutionary change and relative stability, as evolution is adaptation to environment and rapid changes in the environment correspond to more rapid changes in living populations.
Now you're really showing your ignorance of reality. I didn't say there weren't stratas of different types of rock as like the Grand Canyon; I said they don't represent layers of time in flood geology. And rejected uniformatarianism DOES preclude preclude evolution all together. What I point out is that in flood geology from a young earth perspective, there is nothing data-sensitive related to the type of rock layers you find. And that is what we find, trilobites found right along with dinosaur bones. Well, any type of fossil is found right along side any other fossil. That is the reality. With evolution, you can label a trilobite late "Cambrian" and then walk a few yards and strike your pick axe to uncover a dinosaur bone and magically you've hit "Cretaceaous" rock. If you don't believe me, go to Utah in Dinosaur National Monument in Utah where this happens all the time. And the behavior of the animals in response to rising flood waters is just one of the possible explanations. There are at least three others. SO your ignorance of flood geology. And finally, please, there are no lower or upper or middle or any depth-related layers! They just declare the dates based on the fossil findings and explain it away. The layers, the depths, the dates....it's all subject to interpretation to make the theory work.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#129204 May 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its always funny hearing an accusation of spinelessness from someone who is so afraid of death that he will deny all of biology, geology, cosmology, and physics in order to maintain the fairy tale that if he promises to be a good boy, God will let him live forever.
You sure have skewed view of things. First of all, Christians are no more scared of death than anyone else. People in general tend to deny their own mortality and rarely think about their death until it comes knocking on the door. Dying saved Christians do tend to leave this world in peace with a smile on their face while atheists tend to die in terror and agony. And denying science is the last thing a Christian would do - it's inseparable. Finally, Christains don't get to Heaven through "good works". It is by faith alone. Man, you were wrong on all accounts.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129205 May 7, 2013
Urb, the problem with flood geology is that it does not work.

It cannot explain the fossil record. It cannot explain the geologic column. There are so many claims of it that are laughably ridiculous that you cannot find anything that supports it in the world of science.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129206 May 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its always funny hearing an accusation of spinelessness from someone who is so afraid of death that he will deny all of biology, geology, cosmology, and physics in order to maintain the fairy tale that if he promises to be a good boy, God will let him live forever.
Why do you presume to know anything about my religious beliefs? There is no observable fact of biology, cosmology geology or physics that indicates that mindless forces can produce complexity. You're the one mired in religious dogma.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129207 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you presume to know anything about my religious beliefs? There is no observable fact of biology, cosmology geology or physics that indicates that mindless forces can produce complexity. You're the one mired in religious dogma.
When you constantly lie to protect your silly beliefs they give us a pretty good indication what they are.

Your last statement has been blown out of the water so many times that you can no longer claim ignorance. It is a flat out lie.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#129208 May 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Urb, the problem with flood geology is that it does not work.
It cannot explain the fossil record. It cannot explain the geologic column. There are so many claims of it that are laughably ridiculous that you cannot find anything that supports it in the world of science.
Sure it does. It explains what we observe. PS - there is no geologic column. We laugh at you too by the way. Evolution is ridiculous.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129209 May 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure it does. It explains what we observe. PS - there is no geologic column. We laugh at you too by the way. Evolution is ridiculous.
No, the failures of flood geology have been gone over many times before. You cannot explain why we see a "sorting" of the fossils. None of the flood geology explanations are consistent with observation. That is a polite way of saying they are full of crap.

And yes, there is a geologic column. Lies by creatards do not change observable facts.

And yes, you hypocrites can laugh at us but you still drive cars that are fueled by oil found with real geology, not with flood geology. You use computers and TV's that rely on science that says the Earth is billions of years old not thousands.

You use modern medicine that relies on evolutionary theory to develop new antibiotics. And I can link you with videos telling you how evolutionary biology is used in analysis of many diseases.

You will of course continue to be a hypocrite while using modern technology while denying the science behind it.

Most people don't like lying hypocrites. Is it any wonder that very few people like creatards?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129210 May 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the failures of flood geology have been gone over many times before. You cannot explain why we see a "sorting" of the fossils. None of the flood geology explanations are consistent with observation. That is a polite way of saying they are full of crap.
And yes, there is a geologic column. Lies by creatards do not change observable facts.
And yes, you hypocrites can laugh at us but you still drive cars that are fueled by oil found with real geology, not with flood geology. You use computers and TV's that rely on science that says the Earth is billions of years old not thousands.
You use modern medicine that relies on evolutionary theory to develop new antibiotics. And I can link you with videos telling you how evolutionary biology is used in analysis of many diseases.
You will of course continue to be a hypocrite while using modern technology while denying the science behind it.
Most people don't like lying hypocrites. Is it any wonder that very few people like creatards?
The geologic column to whioh you refer is nothing more than a bedtime story. The predictable sequences that you imagine do not exist.
Your references to modern medicine relying of evolutionary theory are likewise asinine. No research in any area of modern medicine takes evolution into account... it is IRRELEVANT.

SZ, you only reveal your abject stupidity when you make such absurd statements that do not bear any semblance of credibility.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129211 May 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
When you constantly lie to protect your silly beliefs they give us a pretty good indication what they are.
Your last statement has been blown out of the water so many times that you can no longer claim ignorance. It is a flat out lie.
My "silly beliefs"?
You think that man evolved from a worm... and you call my beliefs "silly"?

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) 36 min poop 173,872
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr ChromiuMan 143,939
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... 4 hr karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) 6 hr dollarsbill 14
News Intelligent design Tue FREE SERVANT 23
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Aug 30 Chimney1 583
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Aug 30 Paul Porter1 421
More from around the web