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.

HTS

Englewood, CO

#131048 May 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
So where are some of these common sense plants?
How about an early one that was used for "medicinal" purposes, tobacco. Now nicotine can be used for positive purposes. Today there are many better drugs. Now that could not be of any use to the plant now could it? Oh wait, nicotine is a natural anti-herbivore. I guess we need another plant.
Let me see if How's That has come up with any yet.
So now you're saying plants are imperfect. It's up to you to explain why any complexity of a plant fulfills the criteria of biologic altruism, rather than to philosophize why God didn't create perfect plants according to your paradigm. Your logic is typical of the arrogant mindset of atheism.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131049 May 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely absurd. "Another poke in the eye"? LOL!
Nothing refutes science quite so effectively as "nuh uh!"

You win.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131050 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So now you're saying plants are imperfect. It's up to you to explain why any complexity of a plant fulfills the criteria of biologic altruism, rather than to philosophize why God didn't create perfect plants according to your paradigm. Your logic is typical of the arrogant mindset of atheism.
By that logic, poisonous plants that are food sources for animals other than humans, and plants (and animals) that produce poisons or toxins are evidence that God created the world to try to kill us.

Is a pufferfish or a poison dart frog or choke cherries or anything else that causes sickness or death in humans evidence of perfect organisms? Are they not evidence of biologic misanthropy?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#131051 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So now you're saying plants are imperfect. It's up to you to explain why any complexity of a plant fulfills the criteria of biologic altruism, rather than to philosophize why God didn't create perfect plants according to your paradigm. Your logic is typical of the arrogant mindset of atheism.
So, you make a claim, and when someone rejects it, it's up to them to prove you wrong, not up to you to prove yourself right?

Bigfoot is real. Do you accept that as true? There are people who say it's real, and they say they've seen it. Now, prove bigfoot isn't real.

That is your argument. Is there anything wrong with its structure?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#131052 May 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
By that logic, poisonous plants that are food sources for animals other than humans, and plants (and animals) that produce poisons or toxins are evidence that God created the world to try to kill us.
Is a pufferfish or a poison dart frog or choke cherries or anything else that causes sickness or death in humans evidence of perfect organisms? Are they not evidence of biologic misanthropy?
You're presenting religious opinion in an attempt to defend a so-called "scientific" hypothesis. The "imperfections of nature" contention is a failed argument.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#131053 May 22, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you make a claim, and when someone rejects it, it's up to them to prove you wrong, not up to you to prove yourself right?
Bigfoot is real. Do you accept that as true? There are people who say it's real, and they say they've seen it. Now, prove bigfoot isn't real.
That is your argument. Is there anything wrong with its structure?
It wasn't simply "rejected", it was rationalized away by philosophizing about how God should have created plants.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131054 May 22, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you were caught lying again. Don't you remember, I don't have any reason to lie like you do. ANd even though I provided the complete reference, including the name of the author and the year he wrote it and then later gave Mike the link and the full reference and even though it was easily found in several comments and replies you lied that I didn't post it? Everybody knows you and your voodoo Darwin zombee evotard mates lie all the time because that's the core basis for evolutionary theory. Lying, childish name calling, and making-up just-so stories is really all you have going. You really are pathetic. Satanic really. Completely degenerate and corrupt to your core.
Urb, quite fantasizing. You lied. We know it. You never provided the link. We don't care about how well you said who wrote it etc. The rule has always been that lying creatards must supply a link.

When I found the article it was easy to show with quotes to it that you lied. At best it could be said you were a total idiot that misread the article.

Here is a chance to be honest, was what the author talked about an example of genetic entropy being a problem for evolution, yes or no?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131055 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It wasn't simply "rejected", it was rationalized away by philosophizing about how God should have created plants.
Once again your idiotic claim was rejected because you forgot the most important part. You forgot your evidence.

I just got up, did you find any of your miracle plants. I tried to help you but all of the plants I found had a use for their various drugs in them.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#131056 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're presenting religious opinion in an attempt to defend a so-called "scientific" hypothesis. The "imperfections of nature" contention is a failed argument.
Since there is no definable goal in evolution, "perfect" and "imperfect" are equally irrelevent. What survives is "good enough" for survival.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131057 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>So now you're saying plants are imperfect. It's up to you to explain why any complexity of a plant fulfills the criteria of biologic altruism, rather than to philosophize why God didn't create perfect plants according to your paradigm. Your logic is typical of the arrogant mindset of atheism.
What? You would think that the first post you made in the morning would not be completely filled with "How's That for Stupid?"

I made no claims either way about plant perfection. There are no cases that I could find of biological altruism. It is your claim, it is up to you to find some examples.

What do you mean by "plants are imperfect"? And why should plants be perfect in the first place?

Evolution never tries for perfect, perfect takes too much energy. Evolution only tries for "Good enough".
Mugwump

UK

#131058 May 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again your idiotic claim was rejected because you forgot the most important part. You forgot your evidence.
I just got up, did you find any of your miracle plants. I tried to help you but all of the plants I found had a use for their various drugs in them.
Or to put it another way
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're presenting religious opinion in an attempt to defend a so-called "scientific" hypothesis.
So HTS still hasn't presented any scientific evidence for a creator - who would have thought ?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#131059 May 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What? You would think that the first post you made in the morning would not be completely filled with "How's That for Stupid?"
I made no claims either way about plant perfection. There are no cases that I could find of biological altruism. It is your claim, it is up to you to find some examples.
What do you mean by "plants are imperfect"? And why should plants be perfect in the first place?
Evolution never tries for perfect, perfect takes too much energy. Evolution only tries for "Good enough".
It's right to say that evolution never tries to be perfect, but probably not because it takes too much energy. Good enough is simply what happens when an organism succeeds. When an organism does not succeed it is not good enough. It does not TRY to act within any given energy requirement. It just does what it does and the result is either survival or extinction.

OK, this is a small point, and is probably what you really intended anyway, but I made it because there is often some amount of confusion on this issue even amoung educated scientists. Like for instance, I read an article a while back where the author claimed that the PURPOSE of cycle cell desease is to protect against malaria. The reality is there is no purpose to cycle cell desease, it just happens to convey some protection against malaria. There's no trying for anything.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#131060 May 22, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's right to say that evolution never tries to be perfect, but probably not because it takes too much energy. Good enough is simply what happens when an organism succeeds. When an organism does not succeed it is not good enough. It does not TRY to act within any given energy requirement. It just does what it does and the result is either survival or extinction.
OK, this is a small point, and is probably what you really intended anyway, but I made it because there is often some amount of confusion on this issue even amoung educated scientists. Like for instance, I read an article a while back where the author claimed that the PURPOSE of cycle cell desease is to protect against malaria. The reality is there is no purpose to cycle cell desease, it just happens to convey some protection against malaria. There's no trying for anything.
Good points, thanks.

You could say that evolution is simply what happens, as we recognize it after the fact.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#131061 May 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Still nothing from How's That. Surely there must be another plant that supply's drugs.
Oh wait. I just thought of one that sometimes grows wild where I live. Has anyone ever seen the lovely flower the Foxglove? It is used to make digitalin. These are used to treat heart disease. Everyone knows that plants don't have hearts. Surely this is the wonder drug that How's That is looking for.
Oops, dang! I was wrong again. It turns out that the whole plant is wildly poisonous and the medicine is derived from that poison. Of course the poison protects the plant.
Well that's three strikes and I am out. All the drugs that I could find had definite positive effects for the plant.
Perhaps How's That will have something by the morning.
SZ, you're exhibiting the simplistic mind of a spineless atheist.
You're attempted rebuttals fall flat. You cannot simply assign a "function" to a plant and conclude that you've explained a complexity. If the function could have been achieved by a much simpler compound, then your explanation failed. Chuck Darwin himself recognized this fact. Any of millions of different toxic substances would have served the plant to dissuade predators. You have to explain why the foxglove evolved a complex substance that possessed specific properties that benefit man only. Digitalis is far more than "toxic".

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#131062 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, you're exhibiting the simplistic mind of a spineless atheist.
You're attempted rebuttals fall flat. You cannot simply assign a "function" to a plant and conclude that you've explained a complexity. If the function could have been achieved by a much simpler compound, then your explanation failed. Chuck Darwin himself recognized this fact. Any of millions of different toxic substances would have served the plant to dissuade predators. You have to explain why the foxglove evolved a complex substance that possessed specific properties that benefit man only. Digitalis is far more than "toxic".
But that is simply untrue. The compounds do no benefit man only. The plant still derives a benefit from digoxin it produces. Our own bodies produce molecules that are toxic to other organisms.

Your example is an extension of the predator/prey model. We don't produce muscle to feed other organisms, but lions find that muscle tasty. Plants are producing those compounds for our benefit, but we like some of them anyway.

If you are trying to show more than that, you have a long way to go and a lot of evidence to show us that you haven't shown so far.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#131063 May 22, 2013
In my previous post the last line of the second paragraph should read, "Plants aren't producing those compounds for our benefit, be we like some of them anyway.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131064 May 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, you're exhibiting the simplistic mind of a spineless atheist.
You're attempted rebuttals fall flat. You cannot simply assign a "function" to a plant and conclude that you've explained a complexity. If the function could have been achieved by a much simpler compound, then your explanation failed. Chuck Darwin himself recognized this fact. Any of millions of different toxic substances would have served the plant to dissuade predators. You have to explain why the foxglove evolved a complex substance that possessed specific properties that benefit man only. Digitalis is far more than "toxic".
HST, wrong.

You made a truly epic "How's That for Stupid" post when you claimed there was such a thing as "biological altruism" without the ability to back up that claim in any way. Now you are just compounding your epic fail by trying to redefine the concept of "biological altruism".

Let me remind you remind you of a very basic debating rule:

It is incumbent upon the person making a positive claim to support that claim. You made the positive claim that there were many plants that were biologically altruistic. You claimed it was "common knowledge". I disputed this claim, therefore it was up to you to find examples of biological altruism. When you continued to fail that allowed me to shovel a load of shit your way for being such an idiot.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131065 May 22, 2013
And HST, why are you avoiding the direct questions that I gave you.

Why should plants be "perfect" in any way? Evolution does not claim that. Your bible gets around that original claim by saying they were tainted in the "fall".

Why have you not given one example of biological altruism if there are supposed to be countless examples of it?

Face it, you screwed up big time, again. Simply apologize and all will be forgiven.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#131066 May 22, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>But that is simply untrue. The compounds do no benefit man only. The plant still derives a benefit from digoxin it produces. Our own bodies produce molecules that are toxic to other organisms.
Your example is an extension of the predator/prey model. We don't produce muscle to feed other organisms, but lions find that muscle tasty. Plants are producing those compounds for our benefit, but we like some of them anyway.
If you are trying to show more than that, you have a long way to go and a lot of evidence to show us that you haven't shown so far.
Another ignorant atheist who can't see past the nose on his face.
Digitalis is more than toxic.
You have to explain how the added complexity evolved.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131067 May 22, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
In my previous post the last line of the second paragraph should read, "Plants aren't producing those compounds for our benefit, be we like some of them anyway.
It was interesting in an earlier quote HST accused me saying that plants are not perfect <urk?!> Perhaps he thinks plants were supposed to be altruistic and they aren't because of the fall. It is the plants fault that they found a use of the various "drugs" that are in them. At least that is as far as I can go by trying to get into his pointy little head. The nonlogic hurts too much after a while.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 29 min 15th Dalai Lama 3,181
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 52 min Dogen 83,810
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr Dogen 164,915
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 22 hr Regolith Based Li... 223,190
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Sun Al Caplan 1,995
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
Evolution exposed Dec 8 Dogen 6
More from around the web