Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."
Comments
125,941 - 125,960 of 172,606 Comments Last updated 26 min ago
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129177 May 6, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The angle of human hips are different than any chimp or ape, because we walk upright, all other apes run along sort of using their hands also because the hip angle. The angle on Australopithecus is like human so we know it wasn't an chimp , they absolutely do not have this type bone structure. Another piece of evidence is in the thumbs.
Chimps thumb bones are different than human Australopithecus had human thumbs. The difference is Australopithecus was smaller and had a smaller brain, but it's brain case is more human than chimp.
It couldn't possibly been a chimp. There are no humans yet, so guess what it is? Deny it if you like, but it will do you no good.
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?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129178 May 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I see... another one of your canned retorts... the old reliable "quote mine" card, coupled with the "lying" accusation.
Pathetic....
Yes, when you lie by quote mining I will gladly point it out.

And thanks for confirming that you lied by using a quote mine.

You know the rules. All quotes must have appropriate links. In all odds you probably copied and pasted the work of another quote miner. Passing on other people's lies when you know they are lying makes you a liar too.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129179 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?
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_2....

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129180 May 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Oil exploration does not rely on any evolutionary suppositions. If the echinoderms to which you refer are a few thousand years old rather than hundreds of millions of years old, so what? All you are doing is speculatiing how old they are. That doesn't prove anything.
Wow, you deny everything that's in reality, don't you? Is this a habit or did you train for it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129181 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?
Now look at this hypocritical little turd.

When you provide him with a link to the experts that can properly explain it he accuses us of not understanding and blindly following. When the explanation comes, in this case, in Aura's own words the shitfaced weasel claim that you are "parroting".

The fact is he is wrong and he KNOWS that he is wrong.

He is a lying, hypocritical, little turd, shitfaced weasel.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129182 May 6, 2013
HTS, one of the reasons that we post links is so that you can go and see what the experts say yourself. That way you have to debunk their claims not ours.

One of the problems with the nonscientific sites that your lot link is that the science is so bad that it does not take an expert in the field to debunk it. It can be debunked by anyone with at least half of a brain.

Of course that leaves you and yours out of the loop.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129183 May 6, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Beautiful illustration of chimp, human, and Aurtrlalopithecus hips in that first link Aura. Even How's That for Stupid should be able to see that Lucy's hips were much more like human hips than chimp hips.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129184 May 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Beautiful illustration of chimp, human, and Aurtrlalopithecus hips in that first link Aura. Even How's That for Stupid should be able to see that Lucy's hips were much more like human hips than chimp hips.
And with the skull , the teeth give it away.

Australopithecus teeth are human like.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...

Chimps and Gorillas have those huge K-9s.

http://www.editinternational.com/images/galle...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129185 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?

So you see , to believe god created man in the form he is now.
You will have to admit he created in steps , creatures that became over time .. less and less ape to more and more human like.
Which is what evolution says. But you could still be right if....
God created these creatures that looked ape and then created more that looked less ape. Then created more that looked kinda human. Then created more that looked more human. Then created more that looked almost human. Then created some that looked roughly human but didn't like them either. Then he created man. Seems to me they left some stuff out your bible though.

But why would god create things so that it looked just like they evolved over time to become what we are?

And that my friend , IS,, the 64 million dollar question.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#129186 May 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HTS, one of the reasons that we post links is so that you can go and see what the experts say yourself. That way you have to debunk their claims not ours.
One of the problems with the nonscientific sites that your lot link is that the science is so bad that it does not take an expert in the field to debunk it. It can be debunked by anyone with at least half of a brain.
Of course that leaves you and yours out of the loop.
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129187 May 6, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
So you see , to believe god created man in the form he is now.
You will have to admit he created in steps , creatures that became over time .. less and less ape to more and more human like.
Which is what evolution says. But you could still be right if....
God created these creatures that looked ape and then created more that looked less ape. Then created more that looked kinda human. Then created more that looked more human. Then created more that looked almost human. Then created some that looked roughly human but didn't like them either. Then he created man. Seems to me they left some stuff out your bible though.
But why would god create things so that it looked just like they evolved over time to become what we are?
And that my friend , IS,, the 64 million dollar question.
I often ponder that the christian god is actually the god Set, not the sun god that most scholars claim it is. But I have little evidence to back that thought up so it's pretty much just a passing one, based only on what the christians claim.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129188 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.
Now this is still just pure projection, nothing but projection, the most projection in this number of words I have ever seen anywhere. Congrats on breaking an internet record.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129189 May 6, 2013
HTS, have you looked at the latest find, that of Asutralopithecus sediba?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...

No more complaints about missing parts, it was only a tooth, or only part of a skull. This is a rare find where the entire hands and feet are preserved. Usually the small bones are lost. Not in this case:

"The fossil skeletons of Au. sediba from Malapa cave are so complete that scientists can see what entire skeletons looked like near the time when Homo evolved. Details of the teeth, the length of the arms and legs, and the narrow upper chest resemble earlier Australopithecus, while other tooth traits and the broad lower chest resemble humans. These links indicate that Au. sediba may reveal information about the origins and ancestor of the genus Homo. Functional changes in the pelvis of Au. sediba point to the evolution of upright walking, while other parts of the skeleton retain features found in other australopithecines. Measurements of the strength of the humerus and femur show that Au. sediba had a more human-like pattern of locomotion than a fossil attributed to Homo habilis. These features suggest that Au. sediba walked upright on a regular basis and that changes in the pelvis occurred before other changes in the body that are found in later specimens of Homo. The Australopithecus sediba skull has several derived features, such as relatively small premolars and molars, and facial features that are more similar to those in Homo. However, despite these changes in the pelvis and skull, other parts of Au. sediba skeleton shows a body similar to that of other australopithecines with long upper limbs and a small cranial capacity. The fossils also show that changes in the pelvis and the dentition occurred before changes in limb proportions or cranial capacity. "

So what are you guys going to complain about with this find?

With Lucy you complained that she was given more human like feet than chimpanzee feet. As you have seen the skull is more like a human skull than a chimpanzee skull, at least when you consider the all important teeth. The hips are much more like a modern man's than a chimpanzee's hips. So what sort of foot would you put on it, something closer to a human foot or a chimp foot? Since it was closer to a human in these other aspects than it was to a chimp I would put more of a human foot on it than a chimp foot.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129190 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.
Please, there is no need to emphasize that HST stands for How's That for Stupid.

You dropped out of the evidence class. Was it because it was too difficult or was it because you could see where it was going? Even though what I gave you was exceedingly simple I believe it was too difficult for you. If you understood scientific evidence you would have no choice but to accept evolution, which of course is part of the reason that I offer to teach about evidence to anyone who demands evidence after rejecting undeniable evidence.

Evolution, biology, geology, chemistry, and physics all work together as a whole.

None of the so called "creation sciences" do. It is too easy to show that the ideas are self contradicting."Hydroplate theory" means that Noah and his family would be steamed to death. In fact everything in the Ark would be so well cooked it probably would have been preserved to this day. Raising the speed of light in the early universe means that the Earth would still be a molten mass of magma from excessive radioactive heating. Remember E = mc^2. If you make light travel hundreds of times faster than it does now the amount of energy released in a nuclear reaction, and decay of a radioactive atom, is a nuclear reaction, would result in tens of thousands times as much heat being released. If it was a thousand times as fast a million times more energy would be released than we now believe happened. You want to increase the speed by about a factor of a million or more. That means One trillion times as much energy would have been released in nuclear reactions. The Earth might not be molten, it might be vaporized with that much additional energy released. And not only do you want to raise the amount of energy released by a factor of a trillion. You want to increase the rate of release at least a million times

Forget Noah's Ark, what would keep the world from exploding with your model.

Your side are the ones who make "just so" stories about our world. You forget that those stories all have consequences that bust them. That is not the case with evoluiton. When you have had a steady diet of "just so" stories all of your life when you see the truth it might seem to be the most improbable just so story that there is. It is a just so story that fits the data perfectly. No outlandish stories besides the basic have to be invented to explain it. What are the odds of that happening?

The fact that everything fits together so perfectly with evolution is extremely strong evidence that it is correct.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129191 May 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HTS, have you looked at the latest find, that of Asutralopithecus sediba?
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fos...
No more complaints about missing parts, it was only a tooth, or only part of a skull. This is a rare find where the entire hands and feet are preserved. Usually the small bones are lost. Not in this case:
"The fossil skeletons of Au. sediba from Malapa cave are so complete that scientists can see what entire skeletons looked like near the time when Homo evolved. Details of the teeth, the length of the arms and legs, and the narrow upper chest resemble earlier Australopithecus, while other tooth traits and the broad lower chest resemble humans. These links indicate that Au. sediba may reveal information about the origins and ancestor of the genus Homo. Functional changes in the pelvis of Au. sediba point to the evolution of upright walking, while other parts of the skeleton retain features found in other australopithecines. Measurements of the strength of the humerus and femur show that Au. sediba had a more human-like pattern of locomotion than a fossil attributed to Homo habilis. These features suggest that Au. sediba walked upright on a regular basis and that changes in the pelvis occurred before other changes in the body that are found in later specimens of Homo. The Australopithecus sediba skull has several derived features, such as relatively small premolars and molars, and facial features that are more similar to those in Homo. However, despite these changes in the pelvis and skull, other parts of Au. sediba skeleton shows a body similar to that of other australopithecines with long upper limbs and a small cranial capacity. The fossils also show that changes in the pelvis and the dentition occurred before changes in limb proportions or cranial capacity. "
So what are you guys going to complain about with this find?
With Lucy you complained that she was given more human like feet than chimpanzee feet. As you have seen the skull is more like a human skull than a chimpanzee skull, at least when you consider the all important teeth. The hips are much more like a modern man's than a chimpanzee's hips. So what sort of foot would you put on it, something closer to a human foot or a chimp foot? Since it was closer to a human in these other aspects than it was to a chimp I would put more of a human foot on it than a chimp foot.
Sorry, totally refuted.

http://creation.com/sediba-not-human-ancestor

“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 Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#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

Dubai, UAE

#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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min TurkanaBoy 136,377
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr deutscher Nationa... 115,307
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 2 hr The Dude 222
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 5 hr Chimney1 326
Science News (Sep '13) Aug 28 positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••