Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148529 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
So a YEC openly admits to some dishonest compartmentalisation, however he passed his science exams - by uh, NOT using creationist pseudo-science. But as a reality-denier it is very valid concern that should he gain a teaching position that he abuse it and use it to preach.
replaytime wrote:
Ah, Mims, what an idiot. He claims martyr complex by complaining people are mean for not hiring him for having anti-science views, and even the ACLU offered to take up his case. For some reason he declined.

Oh, there was also the good part where he and his pal Demsbki called Homeland Security on Eric Pianka by claiming he was advocating for human genocide for some comments he made given in a public lecture where he pointed out that if humans keep reproducing the way they are at some point it will have a devastating backlash on the population. I remember Stephen Hawking also saying the same thing in The Universe In A Nutshell, but so far no-one's called the Feds or banned him from US soil.
replaytime wrote:
So Sternberg FLAGRANTLY violates the peer-review process and, like Mims, cries WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

Yet so far more evil evolutionists have spoken up for Bill Dembski being EXPELLED by the church he worked for, unless he openly admitted to being a reality-denying YEC who believed in the global flood. But what about the controversy?!?

:-(
replaytime wrote:
4. http://chronicle.com/article/Baylor-U-Denies-...
You can look the rest up yourself.
Beckwith denied tenure. Big deal. Happens to LOTS of people all the time. But I wonder if old Francis has apologised to the creationists he dumped in the Dover Trial and let them hang to dry when he told them (incorrectly) that ID was legal to teach? Oh, and then the school board was handed a bill for ONE MILLION BUCKS.

So far neither Beckwith or the rest of the DI have offered to pay the bill.

Which... ya know... they were ultimately RESPONSIBLE for.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148530 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Article from The Scientist web site;
Is Peer Review Broken?
In the article it is called The Religion of Peer Review and say that peer review is something, that in science, is held "absolutely sacred". Hmmm almost sounds like a creationists talking there.
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
Hey, has he come up with a better alternative yet? Have you? Is allowing creationism even better? Do tell. Cuz really man, there really COULD be a "scientific theory" of IDCreationism and we're really all just too mean to hear it out!

:-(

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148531 Aug 21, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's so broken, why is that the only thing anti-science creationists seem able to find to make that case?
Put another way: find a more effective and useful method of winnowing the wheat from the chaff, and you'll get your Nobel prize along with a point for making your case.
Good luck.
Maybe you should try reading the article. It is not from anti-science creationists, it is from The Scientist Magazine.

And I am not saying it is or isn't broken. I found the article interesting.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148532 Aug 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Interresting. Your right about the Evo children, they have nothing else.
Ah shaddap Jimbo

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#148533 Aug 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The summary:
"Experts also acknowledge that peer review is hardly ever to blame when fraud is published, since thoroughly checking data could take as much time as creating it in the . rst place. Still, Pulverer says he has seen reviewers work on papers to the point where they deserve to be listed as coauthors. "I think everyone in biology would agree that peer review is a good thing," he says. "I would challenge anyone to say it hasn't improved their papers."
So, the conclusions seems to be (thought with a number of issues noted)'No', it is not broken.
There are problems, especially with the number of submissions going up each year.
Yes the numbers of submissions are part of the problem is what the article says.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148534 Aug 21, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
<quoted text>
i imagined you just seated there in the shadow of the dark,
put the light on i cried,
that's it just reach out and turn the light on.
i knew it was all too much for him
so i just sat up all night thinking in my brain
just sitting there till i wet my pants.
screen one was on the blink again,
screen two was alright,
screen three was still showing pictures before time
like something out of a horror movie where you see
only the women in the bath
then the monster climb the stairs.
your imagination races through a couple of scene
scanning characteristics at a rampant speed
can sometimes come naturally.
I just awaited patiently for my subject to leave the room
then i gently knock the screen
and re set the dial of the control panel device
back to autopilot then slipped back to bed,
move then do something.
Who set up screen four must of been a dummy
all i can see is the back of someone's large bald head.
Hey, Urb? Friend of yours?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148535 Aug 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Lies. Peer review is well establish in Creation Science. Why do you have to lie about it?
We don't. The only thing fundies do to peer-review creationism is make sure whatever they propose is anti-reality and make sure they invoke Godmagic. Evidence is irrelevant to them.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148536 Aug 21, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names.
Names like NGC-7521? Or more like Fred and George? What did He name them all?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#148537 Aug 21, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you looking exclusively for studies done with humans?
Most of the research I see is done with rats or mice.
Rats are fine.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148538 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Discrimination Against Creationists
Like Chris Comer!

Oh, wait...
replaytime wrote:
In 1992 Russell Humphreys submitted an article titled "Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps" to the Journal Nature. The editorial staff, knowing he was a creationist, refused to publish it. Six months later, Nature published an article with the same conclusions, but by a different author.
Creation Wiki?

Seriously?
replaytime wrote:
Scientists are motivated to support naturalism and reject creationism.
Problem?

Does magic pass the scientific method?

Can you name ONE single scientific field that is not naturalistic?
replaytime wrote:
Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals.
It is like a battle between Republicans and Democrats.
If that's the case then how come LOTS of creationists have published in scientific journals by virtue of the fact that they are scientists?

Perhaps it's just when it comes to anti-biology pro-creationism apologetics it's when they appear to have problems.

Any idea why that might be I wonder?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#148539 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Article from The Scientist web site;
Is Peer Review Broken?
In the article it is called The Religion of Peer Review and say that peer review is something, that in science, is held "absolutely sacred". Hmmm almost sounds like a creationists talking there.
http://www.the-scientist.com/...
Your article does not support your claim. The author of it points out that there may be too many people submitting articles to peer reviewed journals. He doesn't seem to like it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#148540 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should try reading the article. It is not from anti-science creationists, it is from The Scientist Magazine.
And I am not saying it is or isn't broken. I found the article interesting.
I think others have dealt with the cases you cite.

But in general do you expect peer review to be perfect? Nobody else does.

Do you expect no bias for the current paradigm? Science is conservative and rightly so, and it takes a lot of evidence to change a paradigm.

However if creationism has any validity it should gradually accumulate the evidence to challenge the current paradigm. Hasn't managed that in 150 years, actually 200 becuase YEC was dead decades before Darwin.

I have yet to see a single challenge of theirs stack up. So let them keep trying. I am confident that they will fail because they are wrong and equally sure they will never stop trying. So we will just keep answering any questions you have and pointing out the errors in their attacks. Meanwhile the evidence support ing evolution just keeps piling up.

In summary I have confidence in the process even if its not perfect. Some junk gets through peer review and some good stuff gets blocked. But eventually the junk withers on the vine and the good stuff gets reinforced by further supporting research.

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#148541 Aug 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you seem to have some spare time, why not help me look for recent research on the detailed mechanisms involved in meiotic prophase I recombination. I am looking for research that describes the process in detail and enumerates and quantifies how this is accomplished. How do two sets of chromosomes cross-over and recombine randomly to form one unique set? What determines which sequences are cut and which sequences are to remain? How much of one versus the other remains or is cut? Have there been any extensive statistical studies of recombinations that can provide statistical analysis? Is this really random or programmed? Can the resultant recombination be accurately predicted? And, ultimately, what is the scope of the recombination and its effect on the overall genome and phenome? Does recombination only effect certain protein-coding genes and not others? What can be said about that?
It's over your ability, it's over a humans mathematical ability to do this without crunching the numbers with a computer, as the prediction can be made in copy error etc but to model in a real world example the number of interactions make it a task for supercomputer modeling.
One way or another

United States

#148542 Aug 21, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Rats are fine.
Sorry UC, I must disagree.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148543 Aug 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> It's over your ability, it's over a humans mathematical ability to do this without crunching the numbers with a computer, as the prediction can be made in copy error etc but to model in a real world example the number of interactions make it a task for supercomputer modeling.
Speaking of which, we have things like this:

http://sifter.berkeley.edu/

Uses evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. Maybe we should ask Cowboy how the IDC version is doing. Last I heard their percentage was a big fat juicy zero.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#148544 Aug 21, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry UC, I must disagree.
But it's okay, you too can make your rats happy and stop them from urinating all over your toes by buying JIMBO'S HAPPY PET CARPET TACKS!!!

:-D

“Wrath”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#148546 Aug 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of which, we have things like this:
http://sifter.berkeley.edu/
Uses evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. Maybe we should ask Cowboy how the IDC version is doing. Last I heard their percentage was a big fat juicy zero.
Agreed and understanding such things is withing reasoning , with help from programing as such, and with help from such.

http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/humangenetics/ce...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#148547 Aug 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should try reading the article. It is not from anti-science creationists, it is from The Scientist Magazine.
And I am not saying it is or isn't broken. I found the article interesting.
I have. Many times. Literally every creationist who tries to argue against science and the scientific method trots out that same solitary piece, as though it proves that the peer review process is a wholly faulty and failed process.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148548 Aug 21, 2013
The Holiday Model describes a mechanism for meiosis prophase I recombination. But still, pretty crude and disappointing level of understanding.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holliday_junctio...
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#148549 Aug 21, 2013
This paper seems to address some of the issues I'm concerned with:

"Positive regulation of meiotic DNA double-strand break formation by activation of the DNA damage checkpoint kinase Mec1(ATR)"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 2 min Reno Hoock 228
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Regolith Based Li... 40,745
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 21 min Aura Mytha 201,601
The conscious God or the inanimate nature 56 min THE LONE WORKER 49
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Amused 16,198
Scientists create vast 3-D map of universe, val... 6 hr Chazofsaints 18
News Book aims to prove existence of God (Nov '09) Wed ChristineM 96
More from around the web