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.

Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#131465 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it has been destroyed in many independent ways. Why everybody doesn't wake up and see the 900 pound gorilla in the room is beyond me. Perhaps that is what they were taught or maybe they are afraid of the consequences. Can you imagine an Evolution teacher starting the class off with "I don't believe this stuff but here goes anyway..."? I have noticed that the volume of Darwinism propaganda has been greatly toned down over the last few years. It is definitely losing ground and losing advocates. It's just a matter of time because there's not much to it.
So your argument is basically that the majority of scientists that accept ToE are what

a) Scared of the truth
b) Stupid
c) Unwilling to accept the OVERWHELMING evidence against ToE
d) Just accept what they have been taught without question

And you cant see the hypocrisy?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131466 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like you did exactly what you just accused me of doing! But you didnt even post a link! What a loser. A lying, POS, LOW LIFE SKUMBAG.
Wrong again Cowflop.

What you did was quote mining. The author of that Wikipedia article clearly does not agree with your idea that micro and macro evolution are different things. That is why I quoted a longer more pertinent part of the article. I was not trying to change the meanings of words from the article.

As you use the words micro and macro evolution the two concepts do not exist, and your article backs me up. One becomes the other given enough time. Or in other words, there is no micro there is no macro there is only evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131467 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You lied suckzone. And you're a moron, too. You said - and I quote - "There is no such thing as microevolution..."
We proved you wrong didn't we? And you lied about. And you quote-mined in the process. So we got hypocrite, liar, AND moron to boot. Loser.
Nope, you proved that I was right by referring to an article that agreed with me and not with you.

Once again, you have a mirror where your monitor should be.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131468 May 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you proved that I was right by referring to an article that agreed with me and not with you.
Once again, you have a mirror where your monitor should be.
Not hardly you dimwit.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131469 May 27, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
So your argument is basically that the majority of scientists that accept ToE are what
a) Scared of the truth
b) Stupid
c) Unwilling to accept the OVERWHELMING evidence against ToE
d) Just accept what they have been taught without question
And you cant see the hypocrisy?
All of the above.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131470 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not hardly you dimwit.
More than hardly Cowflop.

I will state this again and again if necessary. The article that you linked agreed with me. I quoted the parts that show that when it comes to micro and macro evolution they are the same thing except for a matter of time.

What you did is called "shooting yourself in the foot". You quoted an article that disagreed with you. Lied about it by quote mining. And then you get pissed off when somebody correctly quotes the article to illustrate your lie.

Turd and Cowflop, why do creatards feel the need to lie? I am asking you since you are an expert on lying. Why can't you argue against the theory of evolution with science that does not come from a site that has been caught lying countless times or even openly admits that they will lie if necessary?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#131471 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Science was founded by people who believed in God. Why can't you get this through your thick skull?
SO WHAT !?!

LOTS of those people were NOT Christians.

And not a single iota of it was ever the result of "creation science".

Indeed, LOTS of the science those "people who believed in god" discovered, pioneered, contributed to, etc. directly CONTRADICTED a 6000 year old Earth, the magical conjuring up of the first man out of a pile of dirt, a global catastrophic flood 4400 years ago, etc..

They may have "believed in god", they may have been Bible believing Christians, but the SCIENCE they did lead to the Big Bang Theory, the Solar Nebula theory of the formation of our solar system and Earth, and the Theory of Evolution.

Not a single one of your "science was founded by people who believed in God" EVER made any contributions that demonstrated a single aspect of "creation science".

Why can't you get this through your thick skull?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#131472 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know of ANY creation scientists who accept it.
You don't know of ANY "creation scientists" who have ever done anything worthwhile, either.

If you think otherwise, go ahead and dazzle us with the amazing scientific discoveries and technologies that have been produced as a direct result of "creation science".

Come on, you "creationists" have had 2300+ years to come up with something worthwhile. You MUST be able to give us a few things that are the direct result of "creation science".

Here, I'll even help:

1) Scientific "proof" that your "christian" God exists.

2) Scientific "proof" that the Bible is an accurate record of Its actions.

3) Adam and Eve's mummified remains.

4) Archeological evidence of the Garden of Eden.

5) Botanical evidence of the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge and an analyses of the chemical properties of their fruit which could impart knowledge and immortal life.

6) Cherubim fossils.

7) Positive empirical evidence that EVERY dating method (using diverse dating methods and from diverse scientific disciplines) is incorrect (some by factors of MILLIONS).

8) Archaeological evidence of giants.

9) Fossil evidence of unicorns, cockatrices, satyrs, angels and demons.

10) Fossil remains of snakes with vocal chords.

11) Metallurgical/anthropological evidence of the massive flaming sword that guarded the entrance to Eden.

12) Medical/anthropological evidence of certain members of a small Middle Eastern bronze age tribe living 600+ years.

13) The ark.

14) Positive scientific evidence for the process a global flood uses to create thousands of sedimentary layers of varying compositions miles deep.

15) Fossil remains of dinos mixed in with those of Noah's neighbors.

16) Chemical and physical research and evidence that would explain why Noah's flood would form permineralization fossils of the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonion, Carboniferous, Permian,Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palogene organisms, but not a single one of the humans who were destroyed and buried right next to them.

17) Evidence for the hyperspeciation and radial migration away from a single point in the Middle East beginning approximately 4000 years ago, of EVERY living organism we find today.

18) Anthropological/DNA evidence that all the peoples of the earth are descended from 6 people approximately 4000 years ago (assuming Noah, who was exactly 600 years and two months old when the flood started, and his wife were too old to have children).

19) Archaeological/anthropological evidence that all the pre-existing civilizations that were destroyed by the global flood were repopulated by Noah's children mere months after the flood and that they immediately took up writing and recording the histories of those destroyed civilizations in the various languages as if the flood never happened.

20) Archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel.

Etc..

Got any of this? Or (useful or money making) technologies based on the "science" found in the Bible?

Anything? Anything at all?

Come one ... 2300+ years worth of "creation science" ... what do you have to show for it?
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#131473 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Besides everything good in science, here are some more specific things that have come out of the recent modern creation science movement as well as related intelligent design: The theory of intelligent design
This would be a LIE!

The concept of an "intelligent designer" goes back at least to Socrates [Metaphysics] and Plato [Timaeus] some 2400+ years ago. Your "creation science textbook" hadn't even been written yet, and in that entire time not a single shred of research or evidence has ever been produced to verify the concept.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>irreducible complexity
For which you have exactly ZERO examples.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>specified complexity
For which you have exactly ZERO examples.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>genetic entropy
Which does not exist.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>fine tuning
Sharpshooter fallacy.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>living fossils
Which are ALWAYS discovered by REAL scientists, are NOT a problem for REAL science and which are merely something you "creationists" use as an argument form willful IGNORANCE and personal INCREDULITY.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>RATE Team findings about age of the earth
Which have been shown to be completely wrong and deceitful.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>comet age, geomagnetic, ocean salt, and many other natural age clocks, plant/animal symbiotic relationships, etc.
None of which are a) true or b) a problem for REAL science.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131474 May 27, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
This would be a LIE!
The concept of an "intelligent designer" goes back at least to Socrates [Metaphysics] and Plato [Timaeus] some 2400+ years ago. Your "creation science textbook" hadn't even been written yet, and in that entire time not a single shred of research or evidence has ever been produced to verify the concept.
<quoted text>
For which you have exactly ZERO examples.
<quoted text>
For which you have exactly ZERO examples.
<quoted text>
Which does not exist.
<quoted text>
Sharpshooter fallacy.
<quoted text>
Which are ALWAYS discovered by REAL scientists, are NOT a problem for REAL science and which are merely something you "creationists" use as an argument form willful IGNORANCE and personal INCREDULITY.
<quoted text>
Which have been shown to be completely wrong and deceitful.
<quoted text>
None of which are a) true or b) a problem for REAL science.
Hey crayon boy, you are extremely stupid or your irrational fears make it appear so. You deny truth and facts that scare you but you are too stupid to know why.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#131475 May 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
More than hardly Cowflop.
I will state this again and again if necessary. The article that you linked agreed with me. I quoted the parts that show that when it comes to micro and macro evolution they are the same thing except for a matter of time.
What you did is called "shooting yourself in the foot". You quoted an article that disagreed with you. Lied about it by quote mining. And then you get pissed off when somebody correctly quotes the article to illustrate your lie.
Turd and Cowflop, why do creatards feel the need to lie? I am asking you since you are an expert on lying. Why can't you argue against the theory of evolution with science that does not come from a site that has been caught lying countless times or even openly admits that they will lie if necessary?
More lies from the liar...

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#131476 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
More lies from the liar...
Microevolution - 1.limited change: minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time.

Macroevolution - 1.theorized large-scale evolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups

Two distinct differences. 1. is time. 2. is the amount of change.

So these definitions support a little of both what You and Sub both say.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#131477 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Science was founded by people who believed in God. Why can't you get this through your thick skull? Atheists by definition are living a lie so everything they do is false. All of the major founding fathers of science believed in God. Most of them were Christians. Many of them were young earth creationists. They are the ones who established much of the science we know today.(Oh and by the way, macroevolution is NOT science because it was never observed - can't be observed - therefore the scientific method is not even involved.)
You definitely have the mentality of a 19th century man.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131478 May 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Microevolution - 1.limited change: minor change within a species or small group of organisms, usually within a short period of time.
Macroevolution - 1.theorized large-scale evolution: evolution theorized to occur over a long period of time, producing major changes in species and other taxonomic groups
Two distinct differences. 1. is time. 2. is the amount of change.
So these definitions support a little of both what You and Sub both say.
Reread the Wiki article that Urb linked. Here it is again. The definition give of "microevolution" is exactly the same as the definition of evolution:

"Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population."

If you ask a biologist to for a formal definition of evolution they will give exactly that definition without the prefix "Micro".

He also ignored this quote from the article:

"Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."

Which also directly supports my claim that there is no micro there is no macro there is only evolution.

Here is a link to the entire article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Let us compare this to the first sentence of the article on Evolution in Wikipedia:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics (also known as allele frequencies) of biological populations over successive generations (also known as time)."

The words in parentheses are mine, but you can see that that definition is the same as the definition for microevolution. In fact I have heard evolutionary biologists using the exact definition, word for word, that Wiki uses for Micro applied to evolution with the Micro of course removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131479 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
More lies from the liar...
Nope, as I have shown countless times you are the liar here.

When it comes to science you cannot defend creationism without lying. That has been demonstrated time and again.

Why did you dodge my question?

Seriously Urb, you can never learn until you face up to the fact that you lie in almost every post of yours.

We are here to help you.

And since we can't seem to do that, we are also here to laugh at you.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#131480 May 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Reread the Wiki article that Urb linked. Here it is again. The definition give of "microevolution" is exactly the same as the definition of evolution:
"Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population."
If you ask a biologist to for a formal definition of evolution they will give exactly that definition without the prefix "Micro".
He also ignored this quote from the article:
"Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."
Which also directly supports my claim that there is no micro there is no macro there is only evolution.
Here is a link to the entire article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution
Let us compare this to the first sentence of the article on Evolution in Wikipedia:
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics (also known as allele frequencies) of biological populations over successive generations (also known as time)."
The words in parentheses are mine, but you can see that that definition is the same as the definition for microevolution. In fact I have heard evolutionary biologists using the exact definition, word for word, that Wiki uses for Micro applied to evolution with the Micro of course removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I read it in it entirety.

Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are "qualitatively identical" while being "quantitatively different".

Scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science describe microevolution as small scale change within species, and macroevolution as the formation of new species, but otherwise not being different from microevolution. In macroevolution, an accumulation of microevolutionary changes leads to speciation. The main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process; although evolution beyond the species level results in beginning and ending generations which could not interbreed, the intermediate generations could.

Difference is in length of time and amount of change. It goes on to say microevolution as small scale change within species and macroevolution as the formation of new species. That is why they say and thus the two are "qualitatively identical" while being "quantitatively different".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131481 May 27, 2013
And when you say "qualitively identical" that means you are saying that they are the same thing.

The challenge has been given to creationists many times to demonstrate the invisible barrier that they claim exists against macroevolution. They have never been able to show that one exists. They cannot even begin to show that one exists.

Do you want to know why they fail all of the time?

It is because no such barrier exists.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#131482 May 27, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey crayon boy, you are extremely stupid or your irrational fears make it appear so. You deny truth and facts that scare you but you are too stupid to know why.
One of us extremely stupid ...

One of us has been denying the truth and facts that have been scaring the Be-Jeebus out of our bronze age goat herder fairy tale cult for the past 3 or 4 hundred years ...

One of us gets laughed at by pretty much everyone in the world ...

One of us is part of a group that has been an ABYSMAL FAILURE at demonstrating that what we believe has any basis in reality ...

Personally, I'm not worried ... and I'm glad I'm not you.

BTW watch the headlines for the next few weeks (even Fox News) and see how many science stories there are about your "creation science" fairy tale.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#131483 May 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And when you say "qualitively identical" that means you are saying that they are the same thing.
The challenge has been given to creationists many times to demonstrate the invisible barrier that they claim exists against macroevolution. They have never been able to show that one exists. They cannot even begin to show that one exists.
Do you want to know why they fail all of the time?
It is because no such barrier exists.
I read somewhere(in a different article) were it described microevolution as small change such as color and size while being the same species where as macroevolution results large change and in a new species. Which is why the Wikipedia article says "although evolution beyond the species level results in beginning and ending generations which could not interbreed, the intermediate generations could".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#131484 May 27, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I read somewhere(in a different article) were it described microevolution as small change such as color and size while being the same species where as macroevolution results large change and in a new species. Which is why the Wikipedia article says "although evolution beyond the species level results in beginning and ending generations which could not interbreed, the intermediate generations could".
Fine, but it is all still the same process. Even the line between being able to interbreed is a fuzzy one. As groups of animals get further and further apart you will find that the offspring between the group first start to have fertility problems themselves. For example a mule is a crossbreed between a horse and a donkey. They are usually sterile, but not always. Then as the differences get bigger the offspring tend to die earlier and earlier and have health problems of their own and eventually the two different populations will not be able to breed at all.

We can see this developing in ring species. A fascinating example of speciation in progress.

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 6 min yehoshooah adam 3,853
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 58 min marksman11 161,478
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Nohweh 30,608
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 4 hr Dogen 110
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Dogen 70,561
G-d versus Evolution? 11 hr Dogen 35
News Episode 2: The Birth of Climate Denial 12 hr Subduction Zone 7
More from around the web