Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129474 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Your explanation constitutes a hypothesis. However logical it might seem, it needs to be validated by the scientific method, and it has not. You have not presented any observational evidence that natural selection can create complexity.
The problem with your explanation is that the probability of a mutation resulting in any increased complexity is extremely low.
Wrong, it has been observed several times over. In the evolution of nylonaise, in the evolution of E. coli to develop the ability to digest citrate.

I am sure a biologist could name other examples too.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129475 May 10, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
For the sake of argument, we'll concede that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. Explain the diversity of life on Earth without resorting to God or some manner of supernatural magic.
Why do you categorically assume that intelligent design = "magic"?
The conclusion of intelligent design is a logical scientific deduction.
Do you understand the wave/particle duality of light? No one does. It is an observational fact. Does that mean it's "magic"?
I observe that life shows evidence of a higher power of intelligence in its creation. My lack of ability to scientifically explain how such an intelligent force operates and conforms to laws of the universe doesn't suggest that I believe in "magic".

If you reject intelligent design, you are required to accept even greater "magic" than I do.

I've never suggested that a literal interpretation of Genesis can be proven by the scientific method. You have created a false dichotomy. You imply that if you reject evolution, there is only one other alternative.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129476 May 10, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually it's 100%. And Katy demonstrated it 2 years before you even got here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...
Now it's time for you to:
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2067082496/h0B4A...
Dude, NOTHING in science is "100%". Anyone who says so s selling snake oil.
And the posting of a link to a previous blog is worthless.
If you want to refute my claims, then at minimum you need to logically articulate what inconsistencies you see.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129477 May 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, it has been observed several times over. In the evolution of nylonaise, in the evolution of E. coli to develop the ability to digest citrate.
I am sure a biologist could name other examples too.
Neither of those examples involve increased complexity, because the "novel" traits resulted only from deregulation from a previously existing metabolic system.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129478 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you categorically assume that intelligent design = "magic"?
The conclusion of intelligent design is a logical scientific deduction.
Do you understand the wave/particle duality of light? No one does. It is an observational fact. Does that mean it's "magic"?
I observe that life shows evidence of a higher power of intelligence in its creation. My lack of ability to scientifically explain how such an intelligent force operates and conforms to laws of the universe doesn't suggest that I believe in "magic".
If you reject intelligent design, you are required to accept even greater "magic" than I do.
I've never suggested that a literal interpretation of Genesis can be proven by the scientific method. You have created a false dichotomy. You imply that if you reject evolution, there is only one other alternative.
The wave particle duality of light is fairly well understood by physicists. They know that large scale physics does not apply to small scale physics. A photon is best represented by a probability function.

And you are the one who most of the time pushes the false dichotomy idea of disproving evolution is evidence for creation. I don't think that I have seen one bit of positive evidence for creation. Of course that is because there isn't any.

Isn't it strange how events that never occurred have not evidence for them?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129479 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither of those examples involve increased complexity, because the "novel" traits resulted only from deregulation from a previously existing metabolic system.
How do you know?

You have failed to give a working example of "complexity". And no, it was not a "deregulation" of an existing metabolic system, it was a change of an existing metabolic system. How do you think that evolution works?

It seems you have a strange idea of how evolution works, it does not work by magic, which seems to be your belief. It happens by slow changes of existing structures.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129480 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither of those examples involve increased complexity, because the "novel" traits resulted only from deregulation from a previously existing metabolic system.
Great, now describe exactly what
"deregulation from a previously existing metabolic system.'
means. Because you sound like Obama talking about health care.
I don't think he know wth he is talking about either.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129481 May 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Great, now describe exactly what
"deregulation from a previously existing metabolic system.'
means..
You don't understand it?- thought it was obvious

It's called desperation

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#129482 May 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean "How's That for Stupid"?
I will admit that I did not come up with it, but I did adopt it.
I don't use that on ever post of his, only the ones that merit at least one very firm face palm.
Thanks SZ. I will have to remember that.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129483 May 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The wave particle duality of light is fairly well understood by physicists. They know that large scale physics does not apply to small scale physics. A photon is best represented by a probability function.
?
Wrong, SZ
Wave/particle duality is observed. It is not understood
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#129484 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, NOTHING in science is "100%". Anyone who says so s selling snake oil.
And the posting of a link to a previous blog is worthless.
If you want to refute my claims, then at minimum you need to logically articulate what inconsistencies you see.
I did. In a very short post. And provided references. Nice try at passing the buck though.

You may as well have just said: "You still need to refute exactly what I said even though you just did!!!"

(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#129485 May 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know?
You have failed to give a working example of "complexity".
Geez, has he STILL not done that??

:-/

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129486 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The only religion I ever make reference to is the religion of atheism that you so zealously espouse and try to pass off as science. I never refer to my personal religion. Scientific research leads to the conclusion that proposed mechanisms of evolutionary transmutation are impossible.
You guys, on the other hand, are always pulling out the "goddidit" retort, vainly attempting to justify what you believe to be a scientific theory by negative references to religon. Chuck Darwin did it, and his minions are still doing it today.
Nope, you post references from your religious myth when asked for evidence, and atheism is not a religion ... well, there are some religious atheists, like Buddhists and Jainists, are you saying a Buddhist is the same as a Jainist?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129487 May 10, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, SZ
Wave/particle duality is observed. It is not understood
You ignored my explanation that was dumbed down so that even you could hopefully understand it.

The wave/particle duality is understood. You simply don't like the answer.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129488 May 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You ignored my explanation that was dumbed down so that even you could hopefully understand it.
The wave/particle duality is understood. You simply don't like the answer.
If you don't dumb it down to the point 'it's all an athesist conspiracy that even the pope is party to' he want take any notice - I have kind of given up
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129489 May 10, 2013
The Creation model has man walking with the dinosaurs. Even from an evolution perspective we have human or ape like skull fossils and we have dinosaur fossils. Both categories are found; that is fact. How far away from each other? At what different depth? Not much different. Since all fossils are formed by catastrophy. But what other fossils ARE found right next to dinosaur fossils and dated the same - even by the evolutionist's standards? Furthermore, what fossils have been found right next to dinosaurs and dated the same? Still further, what fossils have been found dated the same as the nearby dinosaurs and appear very similar to a living species? Nearly all of them! To name just a few, lobsters, horseshoe crabs, crayfish, dragonflys, waterbugs, beetles, cockroaches, bees, butterflys, bivalve shellfish, clams, snails, worms, fish, eels, sharks, rays, frogs, alligators, crocodiles, snakes, etc. They all look like the modern living species (even though the evolutionist call them different names because they believe they had to be different due to the assumed time differences). But the question is, how far removed are the human and ape skull fossils found from the dinosaur fossils? And also, how different are they really from the living species given the variation in the species? So is the situation with all those other living fossils found alongside dinosuars really the same with human and ape fossils? I think it is!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129490 May 10, 2013
If I were to plot on a map the spatial coordinates of all the major dinosaur fossils finds and all the major human and ape fossil finds, what would it look like? All major mammal and bird fossils for that matter! If this were done in a comprehensive manner, what would it reveal?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#129491 May 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Creation model has man walking with the dinosaurs. Even from an evolution perspective we have human or ape like skull fossils and we have dinosaur fossils. Both categories are found; that is fact. How far away from each other? At what different depth? Not much different. Since all fossils are formed by catastrophy. But what other fossils ARE found right next to dinosaur fossils and dated the same - even by the evolutionist's standards? Furthermore, what fossils have been found right next to dinosaurs and dated the same? Still further, what fossils have been found dated the same as the nearby dinosaurs and appear very similar to a living species? Nearly all of them! To name just a few, lobsters, horseshoe crabs, crayfish, dragonflys, waterbugs, beetles, cockroaches, bees, butterflys, bivalve shellfish, clams, snails, worms, fish, eels, sharks, rays, frogs, alligators, crocodiles, snakes, etc. They all look like the modern living species (even though the evolutionist call them different names because they believe they had to be different due to the assumed time differences). But the question is, how far removed are the human and ape skull fossils found from the dinosaur fossils? And also, how different are they really from the living species given the variation in the species? So is the situation with all those other living fossils found alongside dinosuars really the same with human and ape fossils? I think it is!
You still have not explained this "creation model" at all. You make nothing but assertions. Explain it.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129492 May 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The Creation model has man walking with the dinosaurs. Even from an evolution perspective we have human or ape like skull fossils and we have dinosaur fossils. Both categories are found; that is fact. How far away from each other? At what different depth? Not much different. Since all fossils are formed by catastrophy. But what other fossils ARE found right next to dinosaur fossils and dated the same - even by the evolutionist's standards? Furthermore, what fossils have been found right next to dinosaurs and dated the same? Still further, what fossils have been found dated the same as the nearby dinosaurs and appear very similar to a living species? Nearly all of them! To name just a few, lobsters, horseshoe crabs, crayfish, dragonflys, waterbugs, beetles, cockroaches, bees, butterflys, bivalve shellfish, clams, snails, worms, fish, eels, sharks, rays, frogs, alligators, crocodiles, snakes, etc. They all look like the modern living species (even though the evolutionist call them different names because they believe they had to be different due to the assumed time differences). But the question is, how far removed are the human and ape skull fossils found from the dinosaur fossils? And also, how different are they really from the living species given the variation in the species? So is the situation with all those other living fossils found alongside dinosuars really the same with human and ape fossils? I think it is!
You wont find a single dinosaur fossil above the Permian Triassic extinction line . You may find places where the crust has been moved and there is no extinction line, or even places where layers are upside down. But it doesn't change the fact all dinosaurs were from before the Permian Triassic extinction line.
Which was 65 million ya, and all modern mammals, including hominids and humans will be above this line.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129493 May 10, 2013
That should have been KT extinction line, but dinosaurs are between the P/T and K/T extinction events , not before and not after , all modern mammals after the k/T line.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min candlesmell 94,349
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 54 min Dumoti 168,782
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr River Tam 5,992
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 3 hr Mad John Kidd 24
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 4 hr Davidjayjordan 44
Impossibility of a Pertpetual Motion Machine me... 4 hr Davidjayjordan 8
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. Wed 15th Dalai Lama 303