Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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

#129337 May 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. None of you have been able to present even one single example of gradual change in the fossil record. And all you do is whine and gripe about it when I ask.
Do you even see past your own nose? Do you know what gradual change means? Or are you really just lying to sell your snake oil and hoping for a promotion?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129338 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one who lacks in education. You don't even know what evolution proposes. A turnip and giraffe share substantial DNA homology. They are presumed to be descended from a common ancestor. Since you seem to know so much, explain how the ToE precludes the selective breeding of a turnip to a giraffe.
For the same reason that your cousin's great-great-great grandchildren could never be your great-great-great grandchildren.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129339 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that by calling the Big Bang an "expanding universe" rather than an "explosion" that you're making a point? What's the difference? Either way, it was a random event that could not possibly have resulted in the complexities that exist. Either way, your religion is founded on fairytales.
What's the difference between an expansion and an explosion? If you have to ask, you don't know what you're talking about.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129340 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You think that by calling the Big Bang an "expanding universe" rather than an "explosion" that you're making a point? What's the difference? Either way, it was a random event that could not possibly have resulted in the complexities that exist. Either way, your religion is founded on fairytales.
Quantum particles materialize and vanish seemingly at "random" all the time. You are made of quantum particles. Random is merely another word for not knowing the variables.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129341 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
. Since you seem to know so much, explain how the ToE precludes the selective breeding of a turnip to a giraffe.
Because evolution builds on existing 'traits'

Obviously , if u understood the subject - you would know this - but you keep punching the crap out of that strawman

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129342 May 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What gradual change? Give me an example. All I see is stasis and living fossils. GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF GRADUAL CHANGE IN THE FOSSIL RECORD!
The fossil record is a history of gradual change.
There can only be a few reasons that you do not see that, because about everybody besides creationists see it.
Being a creationist is the number 1 reason you are brain dead to evidence that conflicts with your fantasy.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129343 May 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
One example please. I am not asking for much. If you have such a good theory then you should be able to show me at least one example of this gradual change in the fossil record. So just show me one example. I think that is a very reasonable request.
Assuming in reality you are indeed male,(though I have my doubts) You do not look exactly like your father.
That is a change for starters.
Deny this if you like, but then again you maybe one of the rare freaks that look exactly like their daddy. What say you Daddy O?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129344 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
ChristineM said a flying squirrel was transitional... In the context of bat evolution. Chuck Darwin and others have sited the same irrelevant example. You call me a fool for calling you evo-morons out on your own ridiculous comparisons. You have no proposals for bat evolution... All you can do is insult the detractors who assault your cherished religion.
If she did, then she made a pretty common mistake, however the reality is that it's an example of how mammals can develop winged flight ... in stages. The very same stages of fowls, actually. Since all animals are "transitional forms," it is an example, and a very good one. You ignore it and twist the facts and answers you have to mock them simply because you are too ignorant to make the connection.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129345 May 8, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Because evolution builds on existing 'traits'
Obviously , if u understood the subject - you would know this - but you keep punching the crap out of that strawman
What do you mean "builds on existing traits"? Evolution supposedly create new traits. Microbe to man evolution is not building on "existing traits".
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129346 May 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Quantum particles materialize and vanish seemingly at "random" all the time. You are made of quantum particles. Random is merely another word for not knowing the variables.
Your meanderings do nothing to explain how randomness can result in complexity.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129347 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "builds on existing traits"? Evolution supposedly create new traits. Microbe to man evolution is not building on "existing traits".
I dumbed it down for you but I meant that evolution has to work upon pre-existing functionality , the recurrent laryngeal nerve is an example of how it has to work with what is already there, even if it is not the optimum solution.

But I noticed you keep avoiding my question. Let me put it again

Have you got evidence for any of YOUR claims, lets pick one so you can focus your avoidance.

You stated some time ago that the majority of doctors reject evolution
I, and others posted references that disagreed with you.

So care to back up your claim.

I need not state that this goes to your character, and your hypocrisy in insisting others make baseless claims to support their athesist religion (your BS not mine) when it is demonstratably obvious that this is what you have done.
I don't need to state this as have done for the last 5 or so posts (which you keep avoiding)

(Quick tip, when replying, snip out the awkward question - then you will come across as only half a f@@kwikt hypocrite, rather than the whole thing)

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#129348 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "builds on existing traits"? Evolution supposedly create new traits. Microbe to man evolution is not building on "existing traits".
This is a prime example of why we need greater focus on education in this country, especially science education.

Evolution works with what is there. While you are clearly able to make something from nothing, evolution has to have something tangible to work with. Even your parents had something to work with, but in their case they ended with nothing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129349 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot ever answer a question by personal knowledge. You blindly swallow what you are told without even understanding what you believe. All you know is that you're an atheist who is drunk on evo-koolaid. All you can do is make broad sweeping statements and copy and paste links. As your religion is systematically dismantled, you throw hissy fits rather than squarely address the scientific challenges presented. How's that for stupid?
Hardly. I can answer questions from personal knowledge, but when an expert is available that knows more than I do I will gladly refer to an expert.

I do not blindly swallow things. And there is nothing to "swallow" about this new discovery. What do you find so hard to believe? The age of the specimen? That has been explained many times. How it is obvious that the specimen is related to us? We have simplified that for the creatards.

You are projecting your sins upon others. Creatards blindly swallow a fairy tale and lies by creatard sites. The lies fall apart upon examination. The same does not happen with our sites. That is a good indicator that our people are not lying and your people are lying.

Another fine How's That for Stupid moment.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129350 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "builds on existing traits"? Evolution supposedly create new traits. Microbe to man evolution is not building on "existing traits".
And again, a double face palm of Stupid is served up.

Yes, evolution builds upon existing traits. Building onto existing traits makes new traits.

Animals did not go from an eye spot to a fully developed eye in one generation.

Creatards have almost unbelievable idiocy. When shown the small steps that are necessary for evolution they deny that there is any change at all. When how the small changes add up they claim the change is too large of a jump.

A strange mixture of idiocy, willing blind ignorance of the facts and hubris. Is it any wonder that creatards disgust everybody.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#129351 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "builds on existing traits"? Evolution supposedly create new traits. Microbe to man evolution is not building on "existing traits".
When you open your mouth, is it refreshing? You know, the cross-ventilation from your ears. Must be like a spring breeze.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129352 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your meanderings do nothing to explain how randomness can result in complexity.
A leaf falling to the ground is random and simple.
Multiply it by 100,000,000.
The pile of leaves fell randomly into a complex pile.
DNA is much the same, broken into tiny bits , that fall randomly into a complex pile.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129353 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical evolution BS
A flying squirrel is not transitional between a quadruped mammal and a bat, so why do you muddy the water with distractions? Look at the anatomy. Chuck Darwin made the same stupid comparison.
No, Darwin did not say that the flying squirrel was the transitional to a bat. He said it was an example of a creature that had developed in the direction of flight, less so than a bat. In some possible future that creature might (or might not) become more flight adapted, but that would not make it a bat. Thus when looking for a bat ancestor, we would expect to see something along the lines of a flying squirrel, with gliding as a probable stepping stone to true flight.

But why try to reference Darwin accurately about this? You have never bothered with anything else. You keep prattling about Lamarckism after all, when Darwin's theory of natural selection was specifically developed as an alternative and Lamarck's version is entirely unnecessary to it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129354 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "builds on existing traits"? Evolution supposedly create new traits. Microbe to man evolution is not building on "existing traits".
Here we go again. The singular blockheaded mental defect displayed by Urban Cowboy and Marksman. And now you.

Elaboration of existing traits eventually become pronounced enough that we would call them "new traits", but its a continuum.

Just like the temporal succession of skulls, each very similar to the next, can show us the continuum from ape to man. And the continuum of changes to the reptilian jaw in mammal-like reptiles has shown us the small incremental changes leading to the 3-boned middle ear. And so on through example after example, which blockheads deny is evidence.

If you cannot see that as evidence, then you probably cannot see Chaucer as an intermediate between Old and Modern English. You probably think he spoke an entirely separate language that just happened to exist between Old and Modern English in time but any similarity to them is just coincidental. And any traits that mark Modern English from Old English and are present to a lesser extent in Chaucer's Middle English are also just coincidental.

Since you can read Shakespeare without a dictionary, and make out what Chaucer is saying, but really do need a dictionary for Old English, you must therefore conclude that Old English is an entirely different language and could never be ancestral to Modern English.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129355 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your meanderings do nothing to explain how randomness can result in complexity.
Its pretty easy when combined with natural selection.

By analogy - if I started with zero and had a random number generator set to churn out 1000 random numbers grouped in a normal distribution around zero, then I would expect an average for the group as zero. Right?

But If I selected the top 100 of those numbers, the averaged would be something greater than zero. If I averaged these and ran the program again, I would get a 1000 number grouping > zero.

So each iteration, I take the top 100 numbers, average them, and run the program.

I would get a gradually increasing number. I would get a TREND based on RANDOM numbers generated and NON RANDOM selection of the outcome.

You can elaborate this example however you like...and you have your answer.

Where a random increase in complexity leads to a better survival outcome, it forms part of the new baseline.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#129356 May 9, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you had any knowledge of embryology you wouldn't be sticking your foot in your mouth by making any suggestions that Lamarckism may be viable. It is impossible.
Some references for you to ponder – not that you will when you are content to wallow in you ignorance

J Cairns, J Overbaugh, and S. Miller. Nature 335 (1988): pages 142-145

Elizabeth Culotta; "A Boost for 'Adaptive' Mutation", Science, 265 (1994) page 318,.

Jean Molino, "Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Music and Language". IA paper found in Brown, Merker & Wallin,“The Origins of Music”, ISBN 0-262-23206-5.

Conrad Waddington, "The human evolutionary system". A paper found in Michael Banton (Ed.), Darwinism and the Study of Society. London: published by Tavistock.

Ross Honeywill. "Lamarck's Evolution: two centuries of genius and jealousy" published by Murdoch Books.

Honey just because you are incapable of comprehending evolution and so don’t like the ideas of evolution does not mean that evolutionary theories are impossible.

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) 12 min ChromiuMan 159,319
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 min one way or another 58,114
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 21 min Sentinel 1,758
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 28 min RED 219,598
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 31 min McGee 1,908
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 51 min Hedonist Heretic 27,288
News Intelligent Design Education Day Feb 19 replaytime 2
More from around the web