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 (Page 6,299)

Showing posts 125,961 - 125,980 of171,372
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129199
May 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129203
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129204
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129206
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129208
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129210
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129211
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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"?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129212
May 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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 sorting going on is the mind of the evolutionist. They are not at progressively deeper layers underground as you go back in "evoltuionary" time. If you don't know this, you really are clueless. Fossils are rarely, if ever found in core samples. They are just found at the surface in various places and the location is indexed according to the fossil/evolution date. It's all contrived.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129213
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no idea what "peer review" is.
The perfunctory rubber-stamping of unsubstantiated conjectures by atheist stooges is not "peer review".
And that's not what peer-review is, and thus you demonstrate your complete ignorance of what it is, how it works, and why it's critical to the scientific method.

Do you care if the things you believe are true?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129214
May 7, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, the geologic column is observed all around the world. Not all of it at the surfaces in any one location. Nor even all of it at one place. But at places you can observe over 90% of it.

Let's compare the geologic column to a book that was printed at various publishers ( corresponding to different environments ) all around the world. The book is printed and the pages are laid down loosely at first. In some places a wind comes through occasionally and blows off some of the pages of the books. New pages are put on top of old pages whether the wind blows them or not. In some places two copies of the books are squished so hard together that first the pages bend and fold. In some places whole layers are pushed on top of others ( corresponding to orogeny or mountain building ). With all of those books throughout the world. All written about the same subject, even though they are done in different type faces, and even languages at times, do you think an expert could figure out the order that the book came in?

That is the geologic column. It is a book that is written about the history of the Earth. A trained geologist can read it like a book. He can compare one part of the world to another and show what pieces go where.

A trained idiot like Urb or How's That for Stupid can only deny the history of the book. They have no facts to back up their denial, only the knowledge that their invisible friend will disappear the truth is taught.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129215
May 7, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The sorting going on is the mind of the evolutionist. They are not at progressively deeper layers underground as you go back in "evoltuionary" time. If you don't know this, you really are clueless. Fossils are rarely, if ever found in core samples. They are just found at the surface in various places and the location is indexed according to the fossil/evolution date. It's all contrived.
Fossils are most often found in the places in which they are most easily found, which is where layers of the Earth's crust have been upheaved and folded up, revealing lower layers that would otherwise be incredibly difficult to access. And, even then, most fossils are found only when erosion has occurred to such an extent that there are exposed fossils of some sort to indicate their presence.

HOWEVER...just because those layers have been exposed doesn't mean they are recent. If I dig up my yard and leave the soil turned upside-down on the turf, is the stuff that is revealed from it being dug up newer than that which is found elsewhere on the surface? For instance, if I find Victorian relics (or Victorian trash) 5 feet deep, and that layer is then up-ended so it's on top and the grass is on the bottom, is the grass older than the Victorian trash?

The fact that most discovered fossils are relatively easily accessible near the surface isn't an indication of their age. And, the fact that most discovered fossils are relatively easily accessible near the surface isn't an indication that most fossils are at the surface. The fact is, it's expensive to run an excavation, both in materials and time. Just like oil companies didn't start drilling in the ocean first when there was cheaper, easier oil to be found on land, research organizations aren't going to start where the most fossils exist when there are cheaper, easier fossils to be discovered.

Now, if you have a point, please share it.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 125,961 - 125,980 of171,372
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••