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.

Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130202 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
False analogy, Gilette.
The one CO2 molecule you picked was random, and there was a statistical certainty that a random molecule of CO2 would be picked.
Exactly. And the endpoint of humans having evolved was only one of an infinite number of possible outcomes that MIGHT have happened form the process of non-directed evolution.

It is a statistical certainty that evolution, once it began, would have led SOMEWHERE, but we cannot calculate the probability that it would have led to US, because that wasn't the goal and because we don't know all the various factors along the way.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130203 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
False analogy, Gilette.
The one CO2 molecule you picked was random, and there was a statistical certainty that a random molecule of CO2 would be picked. A random CO2 molecule has no information or predictability.
DNA is not a random hodgepodge of nucleotides, regardless of your rellativistic worldview. According to your perverse logic, any complexity could be argued to arise by chance. You simply deny that probability barriers exist.
If that is so, why do evolutionists require over one billion years for DNA to self-organize. Why can't it be accomplished in five minutes?
Wrong. If someone had a legitimate probability argument against evolution we would accept it.

Once again, all of your so called proofs have had a fatal flaw in them. Once the flaw if found no more math is necessary, in fact it would be pointless. Once the fatal flaw is found it is apparent that any answer you would find using that flaw would be nonsense and if you were in fact correct you would be correct by luck only.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#130204 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
False analogy, Gilette.
He was actually perfectly correct in that your "probability calculations" were bogus since it would require a knowledge of all possible variables, which are not actually known at this point.
HTS wrote:
The one CO2 molecule you picked was random, and there was a statistical certainty that a random molecule of CO2 would be picked.
BECAUSE we are already in possession of the facts of general locations, quantities and actions of CO2 in our atmosphere. So we can make probability calculations on how much there is, what it does and where particular amounts can turn up.
HTS wrote:
A random CO2 molecule has no information or predictability.
As I demonstrated above your own premise indicates otherwise.
HTS wrote:
DNA is not a random hodgepodge of nucleotides, regardless of your rellativistic worldview.
No it isn't. If it were, we would not be talking about chemistry.

But then, you AREN'T talking about chemistry.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
According to your perverse logic, any complexity could be argued to arise by chance. You simply deny that probability barriers exist.
No, we deny YOUR "barriers" because they are based on BS and caricaturing our position as pure "random chance". They are ALSO rendered moot by your own alternative (Goddidit with magic). At which point you are unable to provide us with the scientific evidence of the limitations that YOU place on the Almighty.
HTS wrote:
If that is so, why do evolutionists require over one billion years for DNA to self-organize. Why can't it be accomplished in five minutes?
The specific time-frames have not yet been pinned down; the subject is currently under research. Your question is far too simplistic and betrays a total lack of understanding of the subject. But given your posting history that is not surprising. We may as well be trying to have a conversation about quantum physics with an albatross.

Have you stopped lying for Jesus yet?

Didn't think so.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#130205 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. And the endpoint of humans having evolved was only one of an infinite number of possible outcomes that MIGHT have happened form the process of non-directed evolution.
It is a statistical certainty that evolution, once it began, would have led SOMEWHERE, but we cannot calculate the probability that it would have led to US, because that wasn't the goal and because we don't know all the various factors along the way.
That is where you are grossly in error. There are not an "infinite number of possible outcomes" ... At least not an infinite number of functional outcomes.

Can a monkey type Shakespeare?
No, because you can't demand that he type a specific script.
OK, can a monkey type any intelligible text in any language?
The answer is NO
Because regardless of how many possible meaningful outcomes you imagine, that number is buried by infinitely greater numbers of meaningless outcomes.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#130206 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is where you are grossly in error. There are not an "infinite number of possible outcomes" ... At least not an infinite number of functional outcomes.
Can a monkey type Shakespeare?
No, because you can't demand that he type a specific script.
OK, can a monkey type any intelligible text in any language?
The answer is NO
Because regardless of how many possible meaningful outcomes you imagine, that number is buried by infinitely greater numbers of meaningless outcomes.
Irrelevant, because evolution doesn't work that way (random typing), as you have had explained at least 200 times so far.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#130207 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant, because evolution doesn't work that way (random typing), as you have had explained at least 200 times so far.
And if you apply a method of selection to that task he considers that to be cheating. Yet we have pointed out many times over that natural selection is a key part of evolution and his analogy is worthless without some form of selection.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#130208 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I say that?
If so it was hopefully obvious that I meant a point that killed his argument.
He was trying to show how impossible evolution was from earlier hominid to man by showing how hard it would be for another group to follow the path that our ancestors and chimp's ancestors did. He didn't realize it, but that is directional evolution he was talking about.
He was also trying to use the molecular clock calculation to disprove the molecular clock equation.
Same as saying 6+2= 8 but 2+6 does not equal 8

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#130209 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Utilizing all of your assumptions, demonstrate that ape-man evolution is mathematically possible.
I don't have to, because it is already demonstrated physically in DNA and through the fossil record. But you must bear in mind that what we are calling ape is actually the first great apes that were hominids.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#130210 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That is where you are grossly in error. There are not an "infinite number of possible outcomes" ... At least not an infinite number of functional outcomes.
Can a monkey type Shakespeare?
No, because you can't demand that he type a specific script.
OK, can a monkey type any intelligible text in any language?
The answer is NO
Because regardless of how many possible meaningful outcomes you imagine, that number is buried by infinitely greater numbers of meaningless outcomes.
It doesn't matter how many OTHERS get it wrong. But well done for telling everyone you have no basic concept of mathematical probability. And well done for subsequently ignoring everything inconvenient.

As usual.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130211 May 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I don't have to, because it is already demonstrated physically in DNA and through the fossil record. But you must bear in mind that what we are calling ape is actually the first great apes that were hominids.
I understand. You cannot demonstrate that evolution is possible.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130212 May 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you apply a method of selection to that task he considers that to be cheating. Yet we have pointed out many times over that natural selection is a key part of evolution and his analogy is worthless without some form of selection.
What "method of selection"?
You have no proof that natural selection can do what you imagine it to do.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130213 May 15, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
He was also trying to use the molecular clock calculation to disprove the molecular clock equation.
Same as saying 6+2= 8 but 2+6 does not equal 8
What proof do you have that a "molecular clock" even exists?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130214 May 15, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. And the endpoint of humans having evolved was only one of an infinite number of possible outcomes that MIGHT have happened form the process of non-directed evolution.
It is a statistical certainty that evolution, once it began, would have led SOMEWHERE, but we cannot calculate the probability that it would have led to US, because that wasn't the goal and because we don't know all the various factors along the way.
If evolution can take any of an infinite number of pathways, what are there not infinite numbers of collateral branches in the fossil record?
If DNA could have followed any one of an infinite number of pathways, why does only one type of genetic code exist?

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#130215 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand. You cannot demonstrate that evolution is possible.
Much if not most of what you claim has not been demonstrated, has been demonstrated. What I can't figure out is why science scares you so much. It must be the nature of some people to have a weak faith in their own belief system. Five hundred years ago, Galileo frightened Christianity so much with his ideas and research that he was convicted by the Inquisition. It turns out he was correct. Is that what you fear? That all this will once again turn out to be correct. All the evidence supports that position so relax. You can kick and scream all you want but this is happening.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#130216 May 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter how many OTHERS get it wrong. But well done for telling everyone you have no basic concept of mathematical probability. And well done for subsequently ignoring everything inconvenient.
As usual.
Refutation of probability challenges is not accomplished by mouthing off unsubstantiated canned responses. If you disagree with my contentions, you need to logically explain why.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#130217 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What "method of selection"?
You have no proof that natural selection can do what you imagine it to do.
Selection is always the word that creationists jump on as it allows them to imply the need for an intelligent hand at the wheel as it were (something you have done w.r.t. The Shakespeare analogy)

A better word would be 'propensity' as in 'a natural propensity to reproduce and pass on the genetic traits that increase this propensity'

Not as catchy as 'natural selection' but explains the concept quite well (obviously if you understand the theory in the first place, then one wouldn't have to dumb it down)

And before you start - this 'propensity' can be demonstrated in a Petri dish - the underlying mechanism of PROVIDING the 'propensity' is also understood (its called genetics)
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#130218 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If evolution can take any of an infinite number of pathways, what are there not infinite numbers of collateral branches in the fossil record?
If DNA could have followed any one of an infinite number of pathways, why does only one type of genetic code exist?
Sheer religious dogma dressed up as science.

Hey ! Debating the HTS way is easy
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#130219 May 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Refutation of probability challenges is not accomplished by mouthing off unsubstantiated canned responses. If you disagree with my contentions, you need to logically explain why.
More religious dogma dressed up as science

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#130220 May 15, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Selection is always the word that creationists jump on as it allows them to imply the need for an intelligent hand at the wheel as it were (something you have done w.r.t. The Shakespeare analogy)
A better word would be 'propensity' as in 'a natural propensity to reproduce and pass on the genetic traits that increase this propensity'
Not as catchy as 'natural selection' but explains the concept quite well (obviously if you understand the theory in the first place, then one wouldn't have to dumb it down)
And before you start - this 'propensity' can be demonstrated in a Petri dish - the underlying mechanism of PROVIDING the 'propensity' is also understood (its called genetics)
I think you are hitting on the biggest problem I see here. Those opposing evolution and perhaps science in general, don't seem to understand the concepts that they are attacking. It is evident in the claims they make and questions they ask. I have seen many posts that make no sense and the poster falls back on "Look you can't even answer my post." When really, it is often gibberish.

_PrincessSusan_

“I could be Susan's sock!”

Level 8

Since: Jun 12

Lady J's Lead Acolyte

#130221 May 15, 2013
Of course no, don't you want to keep your children ignorant?

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) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 80,001
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr ChromiuMan 163,781
News Intelligent design (Jul '15) 17 hr Dogen 571
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Sat ChromiuMan 222,780
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Fri River Tam 32,582
What's your religion? Fri Zog Has-fallen 4
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
More from around the web