Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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

#129558 May 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast. A recent study compared chimpanzee chromosomes to their similar human-counterpart chromosomes using highly optimized DNA matching conditions and found that the chimpanzee genome was only 70 percent similar to human overall.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
Also, remember Chimney that only about less than 3 percent of the genome is involved in protein coding and the rest is control and other aspects of function.
Not surprising since we are actually apes and not chimps.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129559 May 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast. A recent study compared chimpanzee chromosomes to their similar human-counterpart chromosomes using highly optimized DNA matching conditions and found that the chimpanzee genome was only 70 percent similar to human overall.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
Also, remember Chimney that only about less than 3 percent of the genome is involved in protein coding and the rest is control and other aspects of function.
A couple of problems with that article.

First it is an imitation of a peer reviewed article. That indicates that they are dishonest before they even start. It seems that they purposefully don't count certain similarities between the genomes so that they can have an artificially high "difference". They don't mention how much difference you would see between two members of the same species would appear with their method of measuring differences. Those figures on their own are relatively meaningless.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129560 May 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The K-T Boundary is probably the post-flood boundary.
You have a huge problem with this idea.
The iridium is the tell all trace of an asteroid,
It matches the concentration level exactly, it is also very rare on Earth. But is in every asteroid.
The other tell tale sign is shocked quartz, it only happens two ways.
By nuclear blast and super velocity impacts.
The shocked quartz and iridium is everywhere in this layer.
Over 100 documented locations around the world.
We know it couldn't have been caused by atomics, for one we cant even build one that powerful. So you are left with but one choice to explain it. Besides the fact the impact site has been found.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129561 May 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast. A recent study compared chimpanzee chromosomes to their similar human-counterpart chromosomes using highly optimized DNA matching conditions and found that the chimpanzee genome was only 70 percent similar to human overall.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
Also, remember Chimney that only about less than 3 percent of the genome is involved in protein coding and the rest is control and other aspects of function.
I stand by my statement. We are almost identical at the cellular level. And in terms of our gross anatomy, there are no major different structures, merely differences in size and strength of the same template.

You cannot even call it macro-evolution by your own shoddy "measures". Even dogs, stretched, squashed, and twisted for a mere 25,000 years of human interference, show more physical variation than humans and apes do with each other! Thanks for pointing that out BTW, UC and HTS!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129562 May 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
A couple of problems with that article.
First it is an imitation of a peer reviewed article. That indicates that they are dishonest before they even start. It seems that they purposefully don't count certain similarities between the genomes so that they can have an artificially high "difference". They don't mention how much difference you would see between two members of the same species would appear with their method of measuring differences. Those figures on their own are relatively meaningless.
Surprise, surprise.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129563 May 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, what it all looks like is the result of a worldwise catastrophic flood. If it weren't, and the layers really did represent long periods of time, then there would be signs of erosion between the layers but there isn't any.
Yes, there is. You can only maintain this utter ignorance by carefully avoiding the study of any real geology. I point you again for starters to

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

As well as discussing the erosion points, it will also highlight the problems with your "flood = KT boundary" hypothesis.

But we all know you are too cowardly to read it, as I have posted it enough times and you have always come up with some feeble excuse, so why do I bother?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129564 May 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you take the KT boundary as the flood boundary, you have some strange anomalies to answer.
There are no modern mammals before the boundary. Some primitive insectivores etc. But nothing remotely like a monkey, an elephant, a sloth, or a cat. The paleontological record shows a huge radiation of new kinds of mammals after the disruption of the KT boundary left the earth empty of its previous dominant inhabitants, the dinos. There is a long and detailed record of the comings and goings of many species after the KT boundary, including whole orders that are long gone. A carnivorous hoofed creature. A giant plant eating mammal 3 times the weight of an elephant. etc.
As for the fossils being already found, this flies in the face of the track record. Search and discovery has accelerated, and provided a great deal of material embarrassing to creationists. More hominids, whale ancestors, tiktaalik, 30+ species of feathered creatures that blur the dino/avian split, more ediacaran creatures (pre Cambrian).
But...
STILL no mammals before the mammal-like reptiles.
STILL no birds before dinosaurs.
etc.
We do NOT have human fossils alongside dinos. Anywhere. You keep claiming it, but have not proven it. As your arguments tumble one by one, you retreat to the fall-back of "ITS A CONSPIRACY" more and more blatantly. No conspiracy UC, just evidence every year that you are wrong.
That's just because you are defining terms according to the theory. It's all just made up. There are plenty of mammal and bird fossils with dinosaurs. Yes, WITH Dinosaurs! Time and space does not separate them. No, the only thing that separates them is the theory of evolution.(I know you can't accept this fact due to your ideology and loyalty, but at least try and understand where I'm coming from.)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#129565 May 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just because you are defining terms according to the theory. It's all just made up. There are plenty of mammal and bird fossils with dinosaurs. Yes, WITH Dinosaurs!
Of course there are! Mammals lived right through the period of the dinosaurs, with the first mammals appearing at around the same time. Dinos evolved from archosaurs, and mammals from therapsids. Its all in the fossil record.

What is NOT in the fossil record alongside dinosaurs are modern mammals such as elephants, horses, monkeys, buffalo, cats, seals,or whales. Later than the dinos, we see precursor species to these modern mammals, gradually developing their distinctive characteristics...but most of these do not appear in anything like modern form until much, much later.
Time and space does not separate them. No, the only thing that separates them is the theory of evolution.(I know you can't accept this fact due to your ideology and loyalty, but at least try and understand where I'm coming from.)
Yes, time and space do separate them. Still waiting for your proof that a dino and a human have been found in the same undisturbed stratum. You won't find it UC, nor a dino verifiably alongside a cat or a horse.

All you have is conspiracy. Give it up.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129566 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You will take the position to "go-with-the-flow..
True science involves questioning dogma.
Your mockery to religion only underscores the weakness of the evolutionary hypothesis.
There is no such thing as "dogma" in science.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129567 May 12, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so fast. A recent study compared chimpanzee chromosomes to their similar human-counterpart chromosomes using highly optimized DNA matching conditions and found that the chimpanzee genome was only 70 percent similar to human overall.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
Also, remember Chimney that only about less than 3 percent of the genome is involved in protein coding and the rest is control and other aspects of function.
How telling that again you resort to a religious website instead of a scientific website to discuss science. If I consult scientific websites to argue theology, would that win me any credibility points?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129568 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Molecular homology is a worthless argument. It is entirely consistent with intelligent design. What evidence do you have that humans in the past didn't have 48 chromosomes?
You have nothing but conjectures ultimately founded on atheism.
Wow. Really? So, if we can't disprove absolutely every ridiculous claim you make up to "refute" evolution, evolution must then be false? Clearly you are a master of science. Please, show us where your research has been published.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129569 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not interested in science.
You believe what is popular.
In your mind, the majority of "scientists" can't be wrong... Despite the fact that they have been dead wrong over and over in the past.
You would have called Copernicus a "conspiracy theorist".
Your stupid characterization of those who reject evolution dogma only underscores the weakness of your position.
It's obvious that you've exposed the dirty little secret: science is nothing more than nerds getting together to decide what is true and what is not based on a consensus, and then spreading that consensus through the public school system so children can be torn away from their religious beliefs. It's all a huge atheistic conspiracy.

What is paranoia?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129570 May 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Facts:
We have a set of fossils that objectively (i.e. you can get out your tape measure and check it) show intermediate measurements between ape norms and human norms. The fossils are found in a sequence over 4 million years that go from measurably more apelike to more human-like over the period, step by step.
At every step, the change from one to the next is a "minor tweak" but progressively it adds up to the changes you can see between a modern human and an ape.
Thus the difference between a human and a chimp is a series of minor tweaks. At the cellular level we are almost identical, and the differences are mostly about relative sizes and strengths of the same anatomical parts, even in the brain.
Evolution explains this sequence. Nothing else has done so yet.
You have not presented "facts", but imaginative stories.
There does not exist a neat gradual progression from ape to man. That gradualistic model exists only in the mind of man.
You have no reproducible scientific methodology to date pre human fossils.
Millions of specific changes of nucleotides wold be required to go from ape to human.
Have you considered the ridiculous improbabilities involved?
There is no observational evidence that any species can increase in intelligence through proposed evolutionary mechanisms. It is dogma, not science.
All you have is a fragmented, subjectively interpreted fossil record.
If apes evolved into humans, millions of transitions would be expected.
In reality, there is nothing convincing.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129571 May 12, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
How telling that again you resort to a religious website instead of a scientific website to discuss science. If I consult scientific websites to argue theology, would that win me any credibility points?
The article doesn't even mention religion. Tomkins got his PhD in genetics from Clemson. You must be suffering from some sort of delusions or paranoia.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129572 May 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I stand by my statement. We are almost identical at the cellular level. And in terms of our gross anatomy, there are no major different structures, merely differences in size and strength of the same template.
You cannot even call it macro-evolution by your own shoddy "measures". Even dogs, stretched, squashed, and twisted for a mere 25,000 years of human interference, show more physical variation than humans and apes do with each other! Thanks for pointing that out BTW, UC and HTS!
"Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7% with a range of 66.1% to 77.9%, depending on the chromosome (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions."

"Chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity. However, overall there is extreme DNA sequence discontinuity between the two genomes. The current study along with several other recent reports confirm this. This defies standard evolutionary time-scales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129573 May 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I will answer in 2 parts.
What does evolution offer me, personally? Nothing. I would be happy to confess my sins and receive "everlasting life" if it was believable. I am not someone whose crimes mean I would want the promise of Jesus to be false, I am too ordinary. A married, faithful heterosexual man, with no crimes to his name, no drug history, and I work for a living. Perhaps I jerked off to Playboys as a teen and lied to my parents on occasion. Whoopeee. I have seen some pretty nasty stuff in my time and travels to the world's nether regions and would like nothing better than to believe the perpetrators will get their just desserts in the afterlife. But I do not.
And I think you would find most of your opponents here are in the same boat. Not the sinful unrepentant monsters you were hoping for, desperately wanting to believe the Bible is a myth.
Its more mundane than that. The Bible is just not a literally believable document to anyone who looks at the physical evidence objectively. God is still possible, but the Bible, especially Genesis, is myth.
If you're patiently waiting for evidence of God with unfettered scientific objectivity, why do you accept as valid dogma that is not only unproven but defies common sense?

example... Mutations + natural selection = any complexity, known and unknown. That requires FAITH in unseen forces. That is religion.

Why do you accept radiometric dating of rocks as valid science when it has NEVER been scientifically demonstrated to be accurate and reproducible?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129574 May 12, 2013
Oh look! Without much effort, I find that hominid fossils ARE found in the same regions as dinosaur fossils.

http://www.bing.com/images/search...

http://www.bing.com/images/search...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129575 May 12, 2013
Hominid found in Western Catalonia:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/...

Dinosaur eggs found in Central Catalonia:

http://global.christianpost.com/news/dinosaur...

How could this be a different layer? The two were basically found in the same place!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129576 May 12, 2013
"However, the similarity might be a case of evolutionary convergence, where two species evolving separately share common features."

"Convergence" LOL!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#129577 May 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
WHY would anyone be "desperate to believe" evolution? It offers me nothing personally. The only kind of person I can imagine would be "desperate" to reject your beliefs would be one whose sins are so great that he cannot imagine God forgiving him. I am not that person and I doubt that Kong, Mugwumps, Mike, SZ, LG etc are that person either.
Your past sins have nothing to do with it. If you were to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, your sins would be forgiven. There is no little sin or great sin. It's all sin. The only one that I am aware of that cuts you off from God permanently is the sin against the Holy Spirit itself.

But I can think of non-religious reasons why a person would hang onto evolution even though they knew in their heart it was false. Many people are required to accept evolution and their livelyhood depends on it. They could be secretive about doubting it but if they were to upset the authority and provoke them with talk of blasphemy against Darwin it could mean the end of their career.

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
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 46 min pshun2404 58
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Paul Scott 70,368
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Paul Scott 30,412
The Subduction Zone class on Evidence. (Jun '13) 7 hr replaytime 77
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 8 hr Paul Scott 3,818
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 8 hr Paul Scott 228
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 hr Paul Scott 221,446
More from around the web