Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129611 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't presented any evidence, scholarly or otherwise.
All you can do is make broad unsubstantiated statements, imagining that evolution is a critical linchpin in man's understanding of biology.
It isn't my job to present you with anything, needless to say any such presentation would result in your rejection . But somehow is a need of your trollish behavior to ask for what you will reject.
It's a game to play to fulfill your idiosyncratic religious denial of science. But to be fair I will lead the horse to water, but like all wellsprings you have to actually make the academic effort yourself to become educated in the usual scholastic fashion.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/p...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-...

I'm sure this will be as effective as pissing in the wind, but don't say I am alone or that evidence was not offered.
And don't say you want proof, because what you want is to satisfy some foolish need you have.


HTS

Mandan, ND

#129612 May 12, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok,
Well since you didn't actually quote the study that gave the spurious results with respect to lava flows, I am presuming that it related to the finding that lava that had RECENTLY come to the surface was dated as million of years old.
Now, you are all about scientific enquiry and rational thinking - can you suggest a reason this might be?
By all means provide a link to the study you are alluding to - as I say I can guess but am typing this on my phone, so is not conducive to looking up links and pasting them.
The accuracy of radiometric dating has been challenged experimentally. Samples from lava flows of known dates have been submitted to reputable radiometric dating laboratories. For example, Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts analyzed crushed rock from the dome of Mt. St. Helens utilizing the Potassium-Argon method. The sample was obtained ten years after its eruption in 1980. Assigned ages varied from 340,000 years to 2.8 million years.* The Hualalai basalt lava flow in Hawaii, which erupted between 1800 and 1801, was determined to be 22 million years old by the Potassium-Argon Method.* Sunset Crater in Arizona, which erupted around AD 1064, was dated at 250,000 to 270,000 years. Mt. Etna basalt, which erupted in Sicily in 1792, was dated at 1.41 million years.*. Many other examples of volcanic lava flows of known dates have been blindly subjected to radiometric dating and have yielded similarly worthless results.

* Austin, S.A., 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano. CEN Tech.J., 10(3):335-343

*Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 73, No. 14, July
1968, pp.4601-4607.

*Austin, S.A.,(edit),1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA,

For a methodology to qualify as science, a minimum standard is required. If no published study of the testing can be cited, then everything is a hypothesis only.

If the spurious results are because the lava came from deep within the earth as I believe you suggested, that still invalidates the methodology. No one is questioning the ability of Geochronology Lab to accurately measure analyzes in question.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129613 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable to watch an atheist stooge make references to peer-reviewed science.
You haven't the slightest idea of what peer review is.
If you want to discuss "peer review" within the context of evolutionary theory, we can begin with Ernie Haeckle and his fraudulent drawings that have been rubber-stamped and published in textbooks for nearly 150 years.
More lies from How's That for Stupid.

And you have yet to show how Haeckle's drawings were fraudulent.

All that creatards can do is to see that there was some controversy in the past and that one detractor claimed "fraud". Unfortunately for our creatard friends it looks like that fraud claim was baseless.

So HST, how were Haeckle's drawings "fraudulent". Or do you just like to practice libel along with breaking the 9th Commandment?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129614 May 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a result of evolutionary pressures. It is not guided the way that you think that it is guided. We can see the forces that drove it in hindsight. We could try to reproduce it, but since evolution is a random walk it may not be reproduced. Or we might get the same result by following a different path.
The evolution of citrate digestion in E. coli is an extremely focused evolutionary event. That is one reason it took so many generations for it to arise. It is a much more limited evolution than the evolution of flight. If you look at birds, bees, and bats they all took different pathways to flight. That is because we are not limiting the goal narrowly. The narrower the goal the harder it is to fore evolution. In nature the only goal is to reproduce effectively. That allows for plenty of evolution. It can be seen that you do not understand evolution since you propose ridiculously limited goals for a "proof".
The evolution of flight is a very narrow goal when you consider all of the random non-flight possibilities.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129615 May 12, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't my job to present you with anything, needless to say any such presentation would result in your rejection . But somehow is a need of your trollish behavior to ask for what you will reject.
It's a game to play to fulfill your idiosyncratic religious denial of science. But to be fair I will lead the horse to water, but like all wellsprings you have to actually make the academic effort yourself to become educated in the usual scholastic fashion.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/explorers/p...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-...
I'm sure this will be as effective as pissing in the wind, but don't say I am alone or that evidence was not offered.
And don't say you want proof, because what you want is to satisfy some foolish need you have.
Anti-conventional dogma is not "anti-science".
A true scientist QUESTIONS conventional dogma... And evolution is dogma. The central dogma is this:
Mutations + natural selection + millions of years = all complexities, known and unknown.
Neither you nor anyone on earth can demonstrate either experimentally or on paper a single step of ape-human evolution. You have faith that it happened. You have stories of how you believe it happened. You have taken fragmented fossils and interpreted them to JUSTIFY your fore drawn conclusions.
That is not science...it is religion masquerading as science.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129616 May 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
More lies from How's That for Stupid.
And you have yet to show how Haeckle's drawings were fraudulent.
All that creatards can do is to see that there was some controversy in the past and that one detractor claimed "fraud". Unfortunately for our creatard friends it looks like that fraud claim was baseless.
So HST, how were Haeckle's drawings "fraudulent". Or do you just like to practice libel along with breaking the 9th Commandment?
You're validating my complaint, SZ...
You're justifying scientific fraud because it conforms to your worldview.
Of you were interested in science, you would unequivocally condemn Haeckle's drawings.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129617 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The accuracy of radiometric dating has been challenged experimentally. Samples from lava flows of known dates have been submitted to reputable radiometric dating laboratories. For example, Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts analyzed crushed rock from the dome of Mt. St. Helens utilizing the Potassium-Argon method. The sample was obtained ten years after its eruption in 1980. Assigned ages varied from 340,000 years to 2.8 million years.* The Hualalai basalt lava flow in Hawaii, which erupted between 1800 and 1801, was determined to be 22 million years old by the Potassium-Argon Method.* Sunset Crater in Arizona, which erupted around AD 1064, was dated at 250,000 to 270,000 years. Mt. Etna basalt, which erupted in Sicily in 1792, was dated at 1.41 million years.*. Many other examples of volcanic lava flows of known dates have been blindly subjected to radiometric dating and have yielded similarly worthless results.
* Austin, S.A., 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano. CEN Tech.J., 10(3):335-343
*Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 73, No. 14, July
1968, pp.4601-4607.
*Austin, S.A.,(edit),1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA,
For a methodology to qualify as science, a minimum standard is required. If no published study of the testing can be cited, then everything is a hypothesis only.
If the spurious results are because the lava came from deep within the earth as I believe you suggested, that still invalidates the methodology. No one is questioning the ability of Geochronology Lab to accurately measure analyzes in question.
Can you provide a URL to the Initial quote , the one that has this text:-

'The sample was obtained ten years after its eruption in 1980. Assigned ages varied from 340,000 years to 2.8 million years'

Not being funny but am guessing it is a creation science site (and somehow doubt you have all the original research next to your 'where's Wally' books)

And I'll ask again, can you think of a reason why molten rock that came from the lower strata of the earth some decades ago may date older than (say) a hundred years.

THINK boy THINK
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129618 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
For a methodology to qualify as science, a minimum standard is required. If no published study of the testing can be cited, then everything is a hypothesis only.
If the spurious results are because the lava came from deep within the earth as I believe you suggested, that still invalidates the methodology. No one is questioning the ability of Geochronology Lab to accurately measure analyzes in question.
Apologies (trust me that doesn't happen often) it seems you are getting the point and responded.

So you accept that the dating can be effected by 'contamination'(not really what happened here- but lets keep it simple).

So why do you assert that the whole dating process can be discarded because of some instances of 'contamination'?(And pretty obviously identified contamination)

I mean are you saying that DNA fingerprinting is invalid as a science because we know samples can be corrupted?

I know what your response will be, but will save my comments as have an early start today.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129619 May 12, 2013
TO OTHERS:-

Has anyone else noticed that HTS accuses others of not backing up their claims, or adhering to 'religious dogma'...... But keeps avoiding posts where I point out he is doing EXACTLY that?
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
And some of your unsubstantiated statements :-
A) you have scientific evidence for god
B) HIV is not the causative factor for AIDS
C) HIV has never been contracted via needlestick
D). Hitler ordered the destruction of origins because (snicker) he wanted to claim the idea as his own.
E) most medics don't believe in evolution
Seriously Mr Pot - you really shouldn't be commenting on the colour of the device for boiling water

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129620 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The accuracy of radiometric dating has been challenged experimentally. Samples from lava flows of known dates have been submitted to reputable radiometric dating laboratories. For example, Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts analyzed crushed rock from the dome of Mt. St. Helens utilizing the Potassium-Argon method. The sample was obtained ten years after its eruption in 1980. Assigned ages varied from 340,000 years to 2.8 million years.* The Hualalai basalt lava flow in Hawaii, which erupted between 1800 and 1801, was determined to be 22 million years old by the Potassium-Argon Method.* Sunset Crater in Arizona, which erupted around AD 1064, was dated at 250,000 to 270,000 years. Mt. Etna basalt, which erupted in Sicily in 1792, was dated at 1.41 million years.*. Many other examples of volcanic lava flows of known dates have been blindly subjected to radiometric dating and have yielded similarly worthless results.
* Austin, S.A., 1996. Excess Argon Within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano. CEN Tech.J., 10(3):335-343
*Funkhouser, John G., and Naughton, John J., Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 73, No. 14, July
1968, pp.4601-4607.
*Austin, S.A.,(edit),1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA,
For a methodology to qualify as science, a minimum standard is required. If no published study of the testing can be cited, then everything is a hypothesis only.
If the spurious results are because the lava came from deep within the earth as I believe you suggested, that still invalidates the methodology. No one is questioning the ability of Geochronology Lab to accurately measure analyzes in question.
I am bored and the ball game is over.

Let's look at How's That for Stupid's mistakes.

We can ignore Steve Austin's botched attempt since he did such a poor job we don't know why he got a bad reading. There are two possibilities, either atmospheric contamination or the presence of phenocryts. Austin is such a bumble it could easily have been the first.

The case of the Hawaiian basalt is a clear case of creatard lying. The test done was to actually date the phenocrysts included in the basalt, not the basalt itself. Here is a link to the article sited:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB...

Another creatard shooting himself in the foot when he refers to actual articles. Who woulda thunk it?

So what other specific claims do you have HST?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129621 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're validating my complaint, SZ...
You're justifying scientific fraud because it conforms to your worldview.
Of you were interested in science, you would unequivocally condemn Haeckle's drawings.
Wrong again tard.

I am asking for evidence of Haeckle's fraudy. I could claim that one of your butt buddies Steve Austin was a child molester and try to attack his work using that claim. Of course without evidence my claim would simply be libel.

Where is your evidence that Haeckel was fraudulent in any way at all?

You know that you have none, no more than I have evidence that Steve Austin is a child molester.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129622 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The evolution of flight is a very narrow goal when you consider all of the random non-flight possibilities.
Yes, and other life evolved an amazing amount in other directions.

So what?

Another How's That for Stupid moment brought to you by HST.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129624 May 12, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Apologies (trust me that doesn't happen often) it seems you are getting the point and responded.
So you accept that the dating can be effected by 'contamination'(not really what happened here- but lets keep it simple).
So why do you assert that the whole dating process can be discarded because of some instances of 'contamination'?(And pretty obviously identified contamination)
I mean are you saying that DNA fingerprinting is invalid as a science because we know samples can be corrupted?
I know what your response will be, but will save my comments as have an early start today.
Because "contamination" is defined as any result that doesn't conform to evolutionary dogma.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#129625 May 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and other life evolved an amazing amount in other directions.
So what?
Another How's That for Stupid moment brought to you by HST.
Where are the millions of species that developed partial wings that didn't make it to powered flight?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129626 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's laughable to watch an atheist stooge make references to peer-reviewed science.
You haven't the slightest idea of what peer review is.
If you want to discuss "peer review" within the context of evolutionary theory, we can begin with Ernie Haeckle and his fraudulent drawings that have been rubber-stamped and published in textbooks for nearly 150 years.
Seriously? Haeckel? Again? We've been over this. MANY TIMES.

How about we start with cdesign proponentsists instead?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129627 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Because "contamination" is defined as any result that doesn't conform to evolutionary dogma.
So to clarify, you state that DNA fingerprinting is not valid science?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#129628 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Anti-conventional dogma is not "anti-science".
A true scientist QUESTIONS conventional dogma... And evolution is dogma. The central dogma is this:
Mutations + natural selection + millions of years = all complexities, known and unknown.
Neither you nor anyone on earth can demonstrate either experimentally or on paper a single step of ape-human evolution. You have faith that it happened. You have stories of how you believe it happened. You have taken fragmented fossils and interpreted them to JUSTIFY your fore drawn conclusions.
That is not science...it is religion masquerading as science.
Evolution is not dogma.

But, more to the point: the greatest scientific communities in Europe were filled with creationists. What caused all those creationists to accept Darwinian evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth?

And, more to the point yet again: why did young Earth creationism die out in the mid-19th century, only to experience a revival in the late 20th/early 21st centuries?

Do you know the history of the lies you're perpetuating? Do you even care?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129629 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Anti-conventional dogma is not "anti-science".
A true scientist QUESTIONS conventional dogma... And evolution is dogma. The central dogma is this:
Mutations + natural selection + millions of years = all complexities, known and unknown.
Neither you nor anyone on earth can demonstrate either experimentally or on paper a single step of ape-human evolution. You have faith that it happened. You have stories of how you believe it happened. You have taken fragmented fossils and interpreted them to JUSTIFY your fore drawn conclusions.
That is not science...it is religion masquerading as science.
There is no fore conclusion, there is a demonstrable change due to morphology in skeletal configuration. No point in communication with you, as your conclusion is different than 99% of all the worlds scientists. That mean you must produce evidence to change nearly everyone else who came to conclusion due to the evidence in hand. It isn't a regional or limited conclusion that drives the science. But yours is demonstrably a foregone conclusion due to religious belief. Do everyone a favor and stfu, you are now a officially branded a liar.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#129630 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Where are the millions of species that developed partial wings that didn't make it to powered flight?
It wouldn't take millions of species that failed, only one that did finally succeed. But we know of at least two that did.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#129631 May 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Because "contamination" is defined as any result that doesn't conform to evolutionary dogma.
And talking of dogma, noticed you keep avoiding my challenge to backup any of your statements, you keep doing this and on the odd occasion you do realise you have to respond:-
You simply say it isn't relevant as doesn't discuss science/evolution, but would say as it goes directly to your character (and though respect the likes of UC over you - for at least debating his position) to the dogma of a creationist, as you seem to be one whom makes nonsense statements - then is COMPLETLY UNABLE to back them up.
Lets try again,
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
And some of your unsubstantiated statements :-
A) you have scientific evidence for god
B) HIV is not the causative factor for AIDS
C) HIV has never been contracted via needlestick
D). Hitler ordered the destruction of origins because (snicker) he wanted to claim the idea as his own.
E) most medics don't believe in evolution
Seriously Mr Pot - you really shouldn't be commenting on the colour of the device for boiling water

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
Did humans come from Sturgeons? 1 hr Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee 2 hr Science 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr HTN640509-040147 81,486
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Dogen 32,891
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 6 hr Dogen 2,187
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Science 164,261
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web