Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,448

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." Full Story

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129298 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, you obviously know nothing about science if you imagine that geology validates evolution.
The unintentional humour just keeps on rolling in.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129299 May 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If that were true it would merely be making my point. However, I can tell you quite certainly that it is not true.
And denying science is the last thing a Christian would do - it's inseparable.
False. You and HTS are right here denying science continually. You are not accepting the process of discovery because when anything is found that conflicts with your pre-conceived position that the Bible must be literally true, you will wriggle and squirm in every way you can think of to deny it. Science builds it conclusions from physical evidence, not from scripture, wherever those conclusions lead. Its that simple, yet you fail to understand it.

You can SAY you accept science all you like, but quite obviously you do not, and never will. The ONLY Christians who accept science are those who also accept that a lot of the Bible is allegorical and probably imperfect. If they accept the teachings of Christ without your idolatry of the Bible, then they are better Christians than you, who worships a false God called "scripture".

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#129300 May 7, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is not derived from scientific inquiry. It is derived from a philosophical rejection of God. Evolution does require magic... The magic of complexity resulting from random mutations. Such a process is unknown in science. It is merely imagined.
.
Damn man you seriously need to go back to school. You are trying to pass off creotard trash and you are SOooooo wrong...seriously

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129301 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is not derived from scientific inquiry. It is derived from a philosophical rejection of God.
Utter bollocks.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#129302 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Onychonycteris was fully capable of powered flight and possessed sophisticated echolocation ability.
What is "transitional" about it?
I'm looking for a rodent with elongated phylanges with partial webbing that cannot yet fly.
All life is transitional, even the least evolved species are slowly evolving. Of course you personally will not agree with this but the scientific evidence shows your personal opinion for what it is, personal opinion with no basis in fact.

Why a rodent in particular? Bats are not rodents

However try the flying squirrel, not true flight but able to glide.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#129303 May 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're actually claiming there is no fossil record of any creatures softer than bats? You're a joke.
Say what? Where did I claim that, oh wait a moment, I didn’t, it was you making up BS and lies and adding a facetious comment because you have nothing else. You really are a pathetic debater.

I asked where it was that you based YOUR claim on, you obviously do know have the knowledge or access to the data to respond and chose instead to attempt to mock me for pointing out your inadequacy.

You may consider me a joke for proving your failures but that is by far more agreeable then you being a bullshitting liar…

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#129304 May 8, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Lamarckism has been proven false.
No it has not, no need to lie for your cause, it just makes your cause you silly. Lamarckism was ignored for years until recently and research is now just begging to yield results

And memory certainly has not. How were you taught to hold a spoon and grow up to be able to feed yourself?

But if it makes you feel better to lie and ignore facts than that’s fine, it’s your own conscience you have to live with.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#129305 May 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were true it would merely be making my point. However, I can tell you quite certainly that it is not true.
<quoted text>
False. You and HTS are right here denying science continually. You are not accepting the process of discovery because when anything is found that conflicts with your pre-conceived position that the Bible must be literally true, you will wriggle and squirm in every way you can think of to deny it. Science builds it conclusions from physical evidence, not from scripture, wherever those conclusions lead. Its that simple, yet you fail to understand it.
You can SAY you accept science all you like, but quite obviously you do not, and never will. The ONLY Christians who accept science are those who also accept that a lot of the Bible is allegorical and probably imperfect. If they accept the teachings of Christ without your idolatry of the Bible, then they are better Christians than you, who worships a false God called "scripture".
None of us have wiggled one bit. I haven't changed my stance on evolution. I still say, there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. I haven't seen any. First of all the Big Bang doesn't work. You'd have to remove all the known laws of physics for that to work. There are just too many missing links in the fossil record. The haven't been any evolutionary ancestors found for any of the major classes of plants and animals. Life cannot begin spontaneosly. Proteins are necessary for life to exist, but do not and cannot form spontaneously from chemicals. Quite the opposite occurs. DNA and RNA are extremely vulnerable when exposed. There is no mechanism for evolution to occur. Everything we know about DNA and information tells us we are losing information through accumulating mistakes over time. THis is consistent with what we observe everywhere in the universe which is entropy. So if there is no known mechanism for evolution to occur and no evidence of it ever happening, that doesn't leave anything left. For this theory to remain viable, because there are millions of species of plant and animal, we should have abundant clear sequences of transitioning examples but after 150 years of searching there is nothing. With the billions potential point mutations and millions of species, again, we should have plenty of examples of beneficial mutations which creates new limbs or tissues or some kind of new or nacsent function but never one, just nothing at all. It just never happened. You'd have to have unrealistic hopes and dreams at this point to hang on for so long to such little hope. It's just not considered scientific any more. Evolution amounts to little more than a sophisticated, greatly exagerated game of naming periods and species. If you study the fossil record of a thousand plants and a thousand animals and find that all of the fossils ever found appear very similar to the living species (even though evolutionists give them completely different names because of their belief system), how can anyone conclude anything other than evolution never happened? Go down the list sometime. Echinoderms, aquatic arthropods, land arthropods, bivalve shellfish, snails, worms, sponges, bony fish, cartilaginous fish, jawless fish, amphibians, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, turtles, birds, mammals, cone bearing plants, spore forming plants, flowering plants, etc., etc., In every case the same! If they are still alive, they appear very similar to the oldest known fossil! And if they happen to be extinct ( like dinosaurs) they first appeared very similar to the time they went extinct. No evolution.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#129306 May 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
None of us have wiggled one bit. I haven't changed my stance on evolution. I still say, there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. I haven't seen any. First of all the Big Bang doesn't work. You'd have to remove all the known laws of physics for that to work. There are just too many missing links in the fossil record. The haven't been any evolutionary ancestors found for any of the major classes of plants and animals. Life cannot begin spontaneosly. Proteins are necessary for life to exist, but do not and cannot form spontaneously from chemicals. Quite the opposite occurs. DNA and RNA are extremely vulnerable when exposed. There is no mechanism for evolution to occur. Everything we know about DNA and information tells us we are losing information through accumulating mistakes over time. THis is consistent with what we observe everywhere in the universe which is entropy. So if there is no known mechanism for evolution to occur and no evidence of it ever happening, that doesn't leave anything left. For this theory to remain viable, because there are millions of species of plant and animal, we should have abundant clear sequences of transitioning examples but after 150 years of searching there is nothing. With the billions potential point mutations and millions of species, again, we should have plenty of examples of beneficial mutations which creates new limbs or tissues or some kind of new or nacsent function but never one, just nothing at all. It just never happened. You'd have to have unrealistic hopes and dreams at this point to hang on for so long to such little hope. It's just not considered scientific any more. Evolution amounts to little more than a sophisticated, greatly exagerated game of naming periods and species. If you study the fossil record of a thousand plants and a thousand animals and find that all of the fossils ever found appear very similar to the living species (even though evolutionists give them completely different names because of their belief system), how can anyone conclude anything other than evolution never happened? Go down the list sometime. Echinoderms, aquatic arthropods, land arthropods, bivalve shellfish, snails, worms, sponges, bony fish, cartilaginous fish, jawless fish, amphibians, crocodilians, snakes, lizards, turtles, birds, mammals, cone bearing plants, spore forming plants, flowering plants, etc., etc., In every case the same! If they are still alive, they appear very similar to the oldest known fossil! And if they happen to be extinct ( like dinosaurs) they first appeared very similar to the time they went extinct. No evolution.
Like he said you deny science , but more importantly ..
You deny science exactly like a rabid christian fundamentalist.
I'm not sure there is anyone else around that talks about evolution of life and then skips right to denying the big bang as a theory. The funny thing is, The big bang was a christian mans and a catholic priest's hypothesis. BTW the big bang in it's theoretical scenario say's, the physical laws did not yet exist
until after about three minutes into it's occurrence , which in this time they were settling into existence.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/as...

We understand your rejection of science is based on theological reasons, a fact you will have to come to grips with.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129307 May 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
None of us have wiggled one bit. I haven't changed my stance on evolution. I still say, there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. I haven't seen any. First of all the Big Bang doesn't work....
Explain the gradual form changes we see in the fossil record without using the theory of evolution. Explain in a manner that actually explains why and how these fossils appear to have a gradual change on morphology and what scientifically demonstrable mechanisms cause it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129308 May 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
None of us have wiggled one bit. I haven't changed my stance on evolution. I still say, there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. I haven't seen any. First of all the Big Bang doesn't work. You'd have to remove all the known laws of physics for that to work.

Proteins are necessary for life to exist, but do not and cannot form spontaneously from chemicals....Everything we know about DNA and information tells us we are losing information through accumulating mistakes over time. THis is consistent with what we observe everywhere in the universe which is entropy... So if there is no known mechanism for evolution to occur .... we should have abundant clear sequences of transitioning examples ...

You'd have to have unrealistic hopes and dreams at this point to hang on for so long...Evolution amounts to little more than a sophisticated, greatly exagerated game of naming periods and species....If they are still alive, they appear very similar to the oldest known fossil! And if they happen to be extinct ( like dinosaurs) they first appeared very similar to the time they went extinct. No evolution.
You simply make my point again, more persuasively. The Big Bang was not hypothesised in opposition to the known laws of physics, but as an attempt to explain what we OBSERVE, WITHIN the framework of physics. You just couldn't get this more wrong if you tried. Physicists spend years learning what we already know before they propose new stuff, and none of what they propose will be taken seriously if it violates what we already know (unless it explains THAT better at the same time!).

Not to mention, we are arguing about evolution, but you nonsensically raise the Big Bang when it has no bearing on evolution and was proposed a century later. So again, we go head to head with your CLAIM that you have no issue with science, against the reality that you have issues with just about all science. Biology, Geology, Chemistry, and Physics!

You misunderstand entropy and make claims for it that would rule out even a snowflake, you make patently false claims that spontaneous complexity cannot emerge at the chemical level, etc.

Then you talk about hopes and dreams. Sorry buddy, but hopes and dreams are YOUR weakness when applied to science. I have no hope or dream that there is no God, that life is over when I die, or that the whole universe will eventually decay to nothing without even a distant memory of mankind. You can hardly claim that this is a happy illusion, unlike your fairytale in which a universe of 10^24 planets and 14 billion years duration exists solely to test your little soul and see if you get to win a ticket to eternal happy land. For that little egotistical dream, you would subvert all we have REALLY learned about the universe.

As for your baloney about all older fossils looking like modern ones, its really just too stupid to answer yet again. You have cast out the offending eye, and now you are plain blind.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#129309 May 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain the gradual form changes we see in the fossil record without using the theory of evolution. Explain in a manner that actually explains why and how these fossils appear to have a gradual change on morphology and what scientifically demonstrable mechanisms cause it.
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!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129310 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!
Then you have not looked at any fossils, I repeat the request:

Explain the gradual form changes we see in the fossil record without using the theory of evolution. Explain in a manner that actually explains why and how these fossils appear to have a gradual change on morphology and what scientifically demonstrable mechanisms cause it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129311 May 8, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
None of us have wiggled one bit. I haven't changed my stance on evolution. I still say, there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. I haven't seen any. First of all the Big Bang doesn't work.
Only a creationist would think cosmology disproves biology.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129312 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!
As though you haven't seen the two dozen hominid skulls. Why do you lie?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129313 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!
There must be something wrong with your pattern recognition software. All you can see is SAME or DIFFERENT, and you are completely oblivious to trends.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129314 May 8, 2013
Actually, that reminds me of Marksman.

Wonder if there is a test for it.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#129315 May 8, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you have not looked at any fossils, I repeat the request:
Explain the gradual form changes we see in the fossil record without using the theory of evolution. Explain in a manner that actually explains why and how these fossils appear to have a gradual change on morphology and what scientifically demonstrable mechanisms cause it.
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#129316 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.
Lowell just reminded you of one. Not that you haven't been offered countless others.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129317 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!
Just yesterday with the latest hominid you denied the change that could be seen in Australopithecus sediba. What was even more hilarious is that you linked to an article at creatard.com that complained because the fossil was transitional.

You deny science the second you get up until the last second before you go to sleep. Anything that you do not understand you deny. And since what you do not understand would fill libraries you are in a constant state of denial.

Instead of denying everything all of the time why don't you pick up a book and learn something some day.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min replaytime 117,348
Darwin on the rocks 2 min DanFromSmithville 120
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 3 hr Zog Has-fallen 654
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr polymath257 137,374
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? Sep 27 David M 2
New Fossil Reveals Multicellular Life Evolved 6... Sep 26 TedHOhio 8
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off Sep 26 TedHOhio 2

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE