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.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#137911 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I love TalkOrigins.org :
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1...
HST did get one thing correct. The site that ran the tests said, at that time, they could not date any sample younger than 2 million years.
There have been a few hypotheses on how Austin got such bad results. The number one hypothesis is that there was atmospheric contamination of the sample. He also noted that there were phenocrysts in the rock meaning it should not be dated by this method for a young rock ever.
Today they can get the date off of individual crystals. That means they can date the phenocrysts separate from that of the matrix that old the rock together.

The lab did not have the equipment to measure samples less that 2 million years old. The lab ADMITTED they did not have the equipment to do K-Ar dating for a shorter period than that.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137912 Jun 22, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
remember i am under house arrest they take everything
consider yourself fortunate that you can pick up a copy at the bookshop.
Now I know you are a wind up
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137913 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hee Hee! Supposedly thedarklord is one of yours.
It's only fair we are stuck with Jimbo, now you have your own crazy.
Hey at least ours don't run for government - I see your dark lord and raise you a Sarah palin :-)

Anyway suspect His Lordiness is a windup

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137914 Jun 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The lab did not have the equipment to measure samples less that 2 million years old. The lab ADMITTED they did not have the equipment to do K-Ar dating for a shorter period than that.
Right, the lab warned them not to use a hammer as a screwdriver ahead of time and yet they did.

Also it is important to note that the dacite had phenocrysts in it. Phenocrysts are large crystals that are picked up by the material as it flows. Those will be always older than the surrounding matrix. When a rock is very young those will throw a whole rock date off by huge amounts, you cannot do whole rock dating on a very young rock.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#137915 Jun 22, 2013
One way or another wrote:
New scientific definition by Jim Ryan
The definition of evolutionary science!
Science in the name of evolution, has become everything that cannot be proven.
Even children can write evolutionary science.
Can science prove the
Big Bang?---------NO
String theory----------NO
Radiocarbon dating-----NO
Isotope dating----------NO
Light theory----------NO
Relativity----------NO
Speed of light----------NO
Gravitational lensing----NO
Tol theory----------NO
Red shift supporting the Big Bang--NO
Evolution supports the grasp of anything unprovable.
Whole classes of students have commenced and completed degrees in biology, geology, physics, and chemistry during the time you have shown your failure to grasp even the most basic aspects of the scientific method, here on this thread.

What is the difference between a fact and a theory in SCIENCE, Jimbo? No cut and paste please, answer in your own words. Or don't. Its your loss.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137916 Jun 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey at least ours don't run for government - I see your dark lord and raise you a Sarah palin :-)
Anyway suspect His Lordiness is a windup
How about Lord Monckton?
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137917 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How about Lord Monckton?
Ok, I am beginning to dislike you now.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#137918 Jun 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The lab did not have the equipment to measure samples less that 2 million years old. The lab ADMITTED they did not have the equipment to do K-Ar dating for a shorter period than that.
Which translates in response to HTS' yearnings for reality to be something different than it is "they admitted that all radiometric dating is false".

Just like in his yearning, dreaming mind, a questionable femur in Dubois' excavations can call into to question 40+ Erectus fossil finds since.

And 40+ Erectus fossils can in his imagination "fit into the modern range"....if you count midgets and microcephalics, presumably, who happen to also have enormous brow ridges and molars and no chin and other aspects of skeletal structure five standard deviations from the modern norm, all coincidentally in the direction of an ape, during a period when no "normal" modern skeletons have been found.

Yep. Just like UC. Utterly delusional.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137919 Jun 22, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, I am beginning to dislike you now.
We all have our crosses to bear.

And besides Monckton is not all bad. There are some fairly credible geologists who had what seemed to be good points about AGW in relation to past warming that I had my doubts about it. It was Monckton with his debating methods that he took from Kent Hovind and the like that convinced me that I was wrong and that AGW is a serious problem.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137920 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have our crosses to bear.
And besides Monckton is not all bad. There are some fairly credible geologists who had what seemed to be good points about AGW in relation to past warming that I had my doubts about it. It was Monckton with his debating methods that he took from Kent Hovind and the like that convinced me that I was wrong and that AGW is a serious problem.
The problem is that the two politically driven sides are both wrong. We are in a warming period, a natural one at that, however the warming trend has been disrupted and is erratic, which is not typical nor what we have seen in the past. That means we have been impacting it somehow, but the climatologists are still trying to figure out exactly how and if, and what, we can do to allow the trend to return to it's natural state. The problem is that with our current population level, there may simply be no effective method of doing that without risking more damage.

Perhaps it's just time for our species to follow the dinosaurs, who had caused a similar disruption of the climate when they ruled. Life will always be on Earth, until Sol decides to finally die, we cannot really stop that, however, we can eliminate ourselves with such things.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137921 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have our crosses to bear.
And besides Monckton is not all bad. There are some fairly credible geologists who had what seemed to be good points about AGW in relation to past warming that I had my doubts about it. It was Monckton with his debating methods that he took from Kent Hovind and the like that convinced me that I was wrong and that AGW is a serious problem.
Hmmm, and his views on addressing the AIDS problem?

On AGW, I see an interesting parallel with the evolution debate - the science goes out the window and focus is given to some of the uncertainty (e.g. the scale of the issue), some frauds (E.A uni - though not technically a fraud) and some crazy stuff ( it's all a con to raise taxes/preserve grant money)

In both cases (Evo and AGW) there is a vested interest in denying the science (biblical literalism and a unwillingness to pay taxes as a strategy to mitigate carbon emissions)

Badly typed I admit as done on phone - but u get the gist

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137922 Jun 22, 2013
Yes, we are in a warming trend. The argument is whether it is natural or not and the more that I look at the evidence the more I find myself agreeing with the AGW folk.

Now I hate the way that they have tried to address this problem. But who knows, massive wind farms may be the answer, if we ever get the storage problem licked.

I did not know Monckton had a view on the AIDS problem. I am sure that they are on as firm of a scientific footing as those he has on AGW<rolleyes>

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#137923 Jun 22, 2013
I did a quick scan on Monckton and it seems he has changed his viewpoint on AIDS since his early statement advocating quarantine of all infected people. Now theoretically he could have been correct. If we took away everyone' right to privacy. Tested them regularly. And locked up all infected people a good deal of the AIDS epidemic could have been skipped. All it would take is a totalitarian government. So what's a little bit of lost freedom when you are fighting a serious disease?

He admits that we are well past that now. So does he have any crazy cures?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#137924 Jun 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
As an aside an interesting fact about insects is that if all animals on earth were weighed the total weight of the insects would be greater (by nearly a factor of 2) than ALL of the other animals COMBINED.
Insects are the most successful animals on the planet.
I know and beetles rule the world, lol but seriously the amount of insects could probably never even be known or categorized.
But I give them a !!!!! for making the effort to let us know!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#137925 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, we are in a warming trend. The argument is whether it is natural or not and the more that I look at the evidence the more I find myself agreeing with the AGW folk.
Now I hate the way that they have tried to address this problem. But who knows, massive wind farms may be the answer, if we ever get the storage problem licked.
I did not know Monckton had a view on the AIDS problem. I am sure that they are on as firm of a scientific footing as those he has on AGW<rolleyes>
The storage problem is not the only problem. No matter what we do we will have an impact on the environment, all species do, but if we used up the space we needed for "wind farms," we'd negatively impact more of the environment. Sure, we'd stop disrupting the temperatures a little, but we'd be disrupting verious animal species in the process. The trade-off is just not worth it.

But here's the kicker, it may not be our carbon emissions causing it, because the natural emissions of carbon are much greater, we're just a drop in the bucket comparatively. It may be something else, consider one possibility being electricity itself, current passing through any device or wire creates heat. Another possibility may be the lights, we have on 24-7 in most cities, when light strikes a surface, it produces heat, as well as giving off heat from the source itself. Basically, too many unanswered "if's" to make an accurate assessment of the situation, any hasty action could cause more damage. If it's the electricity, then we have to work on a method of transportation and use that causes a lot less heat. If it's the lights we have to give up our nighttime outdoor lighting, or find a better light system to use. If it's the carbon, then we find a better source for energy.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137926 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, we are in a warming trend. The argument is whether it is natural or not and the more that I look at the evidence the more I find myself agreeing with the AGW folk.
Now I hate the way that they have tried to address this problem. But who knows, massive wind farms may be the answer, if we ever get the storage problem licked.
I did not know Monckton had a view on the AIDS problem. I am sure that they are on as firm of a scientific footing as those he has on AGW<rolleyes>
As you say we are currently on a period of warming, all the main data sets show that.

Are we having an effect ? This I think is indisputable, the greenhouse effect of CO2 is well documented and has been known for many decades, and we are pumping frickin' loads of the mother (scientific measurement there) into the atmosphere.

The issue is the extent of our influence and how it is tackled:-

I actually think alternative energy sources is the long term answer, and also the problem - we are talking about an issue that will definatly not effect us, possibly not the next generation but at some point 'down the line' will have an effect - unfortunately this dosent fit into political election cycles of 4-5 years so is hard to follow through a long term policy.
Mugwump

Rochdale, UK

#137927 Jun 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I did a quick scan on Monckton and it seems he has changed his viewpoint on AIDS since his early statement advocating quarantine of all infected people. Now theoretically he could have been correct. If we took away everyone' right to privacy. Tested them regularly. And locked up all infected people a good deal of the AIDS epidemic could have been skipped. All it would take is a totalitarian government. So what's a little bit of lost freedom when you are fighting a serious disease?
He admits that we are well past that now. So does he have any crazy cures?
I was going to mention the quarantine quote - but actually held back as technically is a solution from a epidemiology perspective - albeit a preposterous one from a liberty perspective.

I didn't realise he had reviewed his stance - but to clarify that does now make him less nuts that Ms Palin (one of yours I believe :-))
HTS

Englewood, CO

#137928 Jun 22, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
A number of errors in your above post
1. K-Ar dating works down to about 10,000 years. I don't know where you got your 2 million year number from. Further, if you were right it would prove the earth is at least 2 million years old, right?
2. Studies provide validity analysis in the study. If validity is in question peer review should point that out.
3. Is is quite easy to date thing well beyond the million or so years of human history. There are over 40 known dating methods all of which have been cross referenced with each other. There are 5 different dating methods all of which give the age of the earth at 4.54 50 million years. None of these methods deviate by more than 2% from this date.
4. There is a lot of research indicating the dates of Home Ergaster. Again, you not liking the data does not change the data.
5. You run of unsupported assertions continues. There seems to be nothing to stop you.
Where is the documentation that K-Ar can accurately date volcanic flows of known dates such as the Hualailai eruption of 1801 and the Mt. St. Helen's eruption of 1980?
I want to see blind studies, with all data included.
Everything you've posted so far is worthless.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#137929 Jun 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dat...
Sorry HTS, I think I will accept the view of experts, not some hot headed creatard who desperately needs to falsify the techniques that prove he is living in a fantasy world.
<quoted text>
.
Chimney, by you own admission, if the earth actually is 10,000 years old, radiometric dating would not show an age of 10,000 years. Therefore, the methodology is worthless for this discussion. You ASSUME at the beginning that the earth is millions of years old.

Because you're losing the argument miserably, you defer to "experts". That is code for "I don't understand your arguments, but I'm going to go-with-the-flow and abandon science."

Unless you can show a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility or radiometric dating in which blind samples are tested from lava flows of known dates, your methodology shouldn't even be considered from a scientific standpoint. Even if you could show such a study, that would not prove the accuracy of radiometric dating for dates any longer than the age of the known lava flows.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#137930 Jun 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, by you own admission, if the earth actually is 10,000 years old, radiometric dating would not show an age of 10,000 years. Therefore, the methodology is worthless for this discussion. You ASSUME at the beginning that the earth is millions of years old.
Because you're losing the argument miserably, you defer to "experts". That is code for "I don't understand your arguments, but I'm going to go-with-the-flow and abandon science."
Unless you can show a study that documents the accuracy and reproducibility or radiometric dating in which blind samples are tested from lava flows of known dates, your methodology shouldn't even be considered from a scientific standpoint. Even if you could show such a study, that would not prove the accuracy of radiometric dating for dates any longer than the age of the known lava flows.
He has already pointed out , by counting the layering of the rock strata , it proves the Earth to be billions of years old. I pay attention when people that know something take the time to type it out.
Maybe he will spell it out again for you.
I'm still trying to pretend you aren't that closed minded person trying to resurrect his imaginary god.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min spud 223,003
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr Science 2,572
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Science 83,147
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Science 164,689
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 7 hr Science 130
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 7 hr Science 143
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 19 hr Reb Bacchus 40
More from around the web