Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178688 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157864 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
*** Reasons Why Evolution Never Happened ***(Part 2)
ASTRONOMY/COSMOLOGY: Universe had beginning; No ET life found; No radio signals detected from outer space (SETI); Inhomogeneity of (bounded) universe; The Horizon Problem; High dispersion velocities of stars in galaxies; etc.
FLOOD GEOLOGY/FOSSILS: Polystrate fossils; Cambrian explosion; Lack of soil layers & lack of erosion between layers; “Missing” age layers; Soft sediment deformation (bent rock);; Non-existent geologic “age” column; “360 Ma” Shrimp (decapods) with no change since; Living fossils from pre-Cambrian (600 Ma Horseshoe Crab); Abrupt appearance of fossils and stasis exhibited in geologic column; Soft/still rotting T.Rex tissue in “old” fossils;; H. Erectus, Neanderthal, H. Habilus, etc., were fully man; Closed-shelled mullusks; Shells found in mountains worldwide; Location of Gold deposits (Au) inconsistent with evolution of molten earth; etc.
BIOLOGY/GENETICS: Extinction of numerous species; Life comes only from (same species) life/biogenesis; Woman from man (X/Y Chromosomes); Chromosome count fixed within species; Chromosome errors cause sterility (mules); No possible evolutionary path of bird from reptile (scales/feathers, bellows lung/avian lung, crawling/flying); Unique properties of humans vs. animals; Telomeres system tightly engineered/extreme sequence conservation and no intermediate/evidence of gradual transition; Single-cell to multi-cell gap; Gene pool (male & female) fixed at parent’s birth/no environmental effect occurs during life of parents; Resistance, i.e., antibiotic or pesticide, does not yield any de novo genes or any complex new functions; Chromosome 2 Fusion Model refuted; All known life only on Earth; Evolution cannot explain origins of sexual reproduction; The myth of vestigial organs; Cold-blooded vs. warm-blooded; Placental vs. marsupial; Egg bearing vs. live birth; Lenski’s E.coli long term Research proves no vertical/forward progress evolution after 50,000 generations; Cytochrome-C percent sequence difference equidistant from all eucaryotes to bacteria; C-Value Paradox; Epigenetics effects much larger than any possible mutation/selection; No true positive mutations that create new or nascent limb, tissue, organ ever observed; miRNA contradicts evolution; Statistical entropy and dS = k log We/Ws proves abiogenesis and forward progress/vertical evolution violates SLoT; Species-specific mechanisms (chemotaxis, sperm/protein-ovum/receptor combination, chromosome count/cell division) prevents speciation.
OTHER/MISCELANEOUS: Bible, Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, Christ; Duality/human consciousness; Law of cause and effect violated (nothing + nobody = everything premise illogical); Information theory in DNA; Language -unique to humans - became less complex over time in opposition to evolution; Beauty of nature (peacock tail), art, music; Second Law of Thermodynamics (universe & everything in it is “waxing” old (“closed system” myth); Mathematical odds against abiogenesis, left-hand protein, prokaryote to eukaryote, sexual reproduction; Preconditions of intelligibility: laws of logic, absolute morality, & the uniformity of nature; The non-physical, non-material world of literature, art, music, humor, logic and mathematics; Near-death experience data; Organ transplant memory transfer; Placebo, nocebo effect; Altruism contradicts evolution; Historical basis for prohibiting incest; etc.
As usual you fail to edit out the claims that have been debunked. We all know why - there would be nothing left.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157865 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>.
THe Oort Cloud is hypothetical and has never been observed. But pop magazines keep exaggerating claims so people like you drink the Kool-Aid.
The Oort cloud /&#712;&#596;rt/[1](na med after the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort), or Öpik–Oort cloud,[2] is a hypothesized spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals that may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.
Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made, astronomers argue that it is the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System and many of the centaurs and Jupiter-family comets as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
Hypothetical yes, but consistent with the known laws of physics and not demanding any exceptions or additions. Therefore a good possible explanation for what we observe.

Lets pretend that one day more direct evidence of the Oort Cloud was discovered. Would that cause you to reconsider creationisn? We all know the answer.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#157866 Nov 13, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Nuclear fusion has never been "observed" in the interior of the Sun, but there are no other logical explanations for the properties of the sun based upon its observations.
False analogy. There are no other known "Oort Clouds" that generate comets so that we can logically explain the properties of an unseen one.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#157867 Nov 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual you fail to edit out the claims that have been debunked. We all know why - there would be nothing left.
The evidence against evolution is mounting.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#157868 Nov 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
<quoted text>
No. Because they would not change wholesale. One mechanism would change slightly. Logically any single change that prevented a member interbreeding within this group would be eliminated. Any change that did not, would be able to spread through the group. Then they would all have that change. At that point they would still be compatible breeding with the other group too.
But, one by one, the changes continue to accumulate in the same way. Eventually each population has accumulated say 20 changes and now interbreeding is difficult. And lets say that after many more generations they have accumulated 100 changes, and now interbreeding is impossible. Its not any single change, its the cumulative effect of all of them.
Languages "speciate" in the same way. Its not a single point where you say "this language change makes intercommunication impossible". Its an accumulation of small changes that do this, until what was a common language like Latin is now split into French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian etc.
Before you call this a "just so story", remember that genetic drift is a well known and studied phenomenon and no mystery. Therefore we are merely explaining your "problem" in terms of standard biology.
Its really strange to me that after all this time, you still cannot seem to see how small cumulative changes can add up to big total changes over time. Its a process we see happening everywhere.
We do not know *how* the mechanism works but we know that it *does* work. Actually, there is 4th mechanism that I didn't mention because at first I didn't think it was relevant to evolution but actually it still is: Cortical/acrosome reaction is the dual functionality that prevents more than one sperm from fertilizing the egg. So you have four tasks that must be completely error-free: 1. chemotaxis, 2. protein-receptor, 3. cortical-acrosome reaction, and 4. chromosome count. If any of these species-specific functions fails, fecundity is compromised.

You ask how do I know a single point mutation in any one of these genes is enough to prevent fertilization? Based on the fact that even when all these mechanisms are functioning the possibility of fertilization is still very low and that many couples cannot have children even when science cannot determine if there is anything wrong. On the other hand, we do know of many genetic diseases that result in sterility. It is clear that it is a prerequisite that these four mechanisms work perfectly before there is the possibility of (natural) fertilization to occur.

So tell me what this less than "wholesale" change would be? Even when things are perfect it doesn't always work. Any errors in the instructions; any misshapen protein or incorrect control gene would render it inoperable.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157870 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know *how* the mechanism works but we know that it *does* work. Actually, there is 4th mechanism that I didn't mention because at first I didn't think it was relevant to evolution but actually it still is: Cortical/acrosome reaction is the dual functionality that prevents more than one sperm from fertilizing the egg. So you have four tasks that must be completely error-free: 1. chemotaxis, 2. protein-receptor, 3. cortical-acrosome reaction, and 4. chromosome count. If any of these species-specific functions fails, fecundity is compromised.
You ask how do I know a single point mutation in any one of these genes is enough to prevent fertilization? Based on the fact that even when all these mechanisms are functioning the possibility of fertilization is still very low and that many couples cannot have children even when science cannot determine if there is anything wrong. On the other hand, we do know of many genetic diseases that result in sterility. It is clear that it is a prerequisite that these four mechanisms work perfectly before there is the possibility of (natural) fertilization to occur.
So tell me what this less than "wholesale" change would be? Even when things are perfect it doesn't always work. Any errors in the instructions; any misshapen protein or incorrect control gene would render it inoperable.
To your first para. No, we know how the mechanism of gradual cumulative change works in general and in many cases. If we dont know tje specifics in this case it still does not mean we should regard it as a special case needing different rules.

To you second point, this is not any kind of evidence that single point mutations or even more extensive ones must derail the process. You were doing better when you said we dont understand the specifics, than when you make a claim like that. Afterall, we know of all kinds of complex proteins etc that still work even though there are 1000s of known variations. Just look up the mitochondrial haplotype tree some time!

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#157871 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence against evolution is mounting.
Gosh after 150 years of people saying that...it means so much coming from you. yawn

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157872 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The evidence against evolution is mounting.
You still havent given any evidence that does not disappear in a puff of bad logic, bad evidence, or faulty assumptions yet. Take 19 minutes out some time and watch Entropy Intuition, another Khan lecture, some time.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#157873 Nov 13, 2013
I see Urb is desperately trying to change the subject after his misunderstandings of entropy have been underscored. I will take this as an admission he was wrong about entropy.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#157874 Nov 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
I see Urb is desperately trying to change the subject after his misunderstandings of entropy have been underscored. I will take this as an admission he was wrong about entropy.
Urb changing the subject is as close to an honest admission of his errors as you will ever see.

I reread Creager last night and after our long journey its glaring errors that start in about the second sentence were more stupidly obvious than ever.

Urb knows it too.

“The Edge”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Of Tomorow

#157875 Nov 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
I see Urb is desperately trying to change the subject after his misunderstandings of entropy have been underscored. I will take this as an admission he was wrong about entropy.
Of course not silly, math professors don't know about math problems, that's why creationists teach math in topix.
lol

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157876 Nov 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Urb changing the subject is as close to an honest admission of his errors as you will ever see.
I reread Creager last night and after our long journey its glaring errors that start in about the second sentence were more stupidly obvious than ever.
Urb knows it too.
I am 100% certain that you and poly are either dumber than a box of rocks or lying like crazy. Creager is 100% correct. Every observation ever made in the universe comfirms it. The math confirms it. Common sense confirms it. All you too did is roil the settled facts into confusion and deceipt.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157877 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
In conclusion,
"It has been shown herein that when energy is applied to a system, the degree of randomness of the system moves toward the degree of randomness of the applied energy. When energy is applied in a manner more random than the system to which it is applied, the system’s entropy increases. When energy is applied in a manner less random than the system to which it is applied, the system’s entropy decreases. This represents a general concept of how applied energy affects a system’s entropy in any application of energy to any system. Furthermore, this provides a solid answer to the argument that a naturalistic origin of life is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics because the earth is an open system. The argument fails because that energy is applied in a manner far more random than the high degree of organized complexity of even the simplest living cell."
-Charles Creager Jr.
Thank you Charles. These evolutionists on this forum, even though they have had every opportunity and plenty of time, have completely failed to refute your findings. Your findings held up to the physics, the math, the real-world examples, and especially to logic and common sense.
Bullcrap. Whether you add "ordered" or "random" energy to a system, you have still added energy, and if the amount is the same for each, the entropy change is the same for each. You want a painting 4 feet from the door and the artist puts it on the wrong side. Whoops, Random Energy Alert! Change the equation variables! Quit trying to whitewash a mud brick fence and calling it marble, ya dipstick.
Your premise is pure bias confirmation, believing (Yea and Amen, you Must BeLIEVAH, Mah Brothers!) that chemical interactions couldn't and didn't occur without a guiding hand and that life was initially "created" as highly complex systems. You can't think past your first mistake. You (and Creager) fail on so many levels.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#157878 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
We do not know *how* the mechanism works but we know that it *does* work. Actually, there is 4th mechanism that I didn't mention because at first I didn't think it was relevant to evolution but actually it still is: Cortical/acrosome reaction is the dual functionality that prevents more than one sperm from fertilizing the egg. So you have four tasks that must be completely error-free: 1. chemotaxis, 2. protein-receptor, 3. cortical-acrosome reaction, and 4. chromosome count. If any of these species-specific functions fails, fecundity is compromised.
You ask how do I know a single point mutation in any one of these genes is enough to prevent fertilization? Based on the fact that even when all these mechanisms are functioning the possibility of fertilization is still very low and that many couples cannot have children even when science cannot determine if there is anything wrong. On the other hand, we do know of many genetic diseases that result in sterility. It is clear that it is a prerequisite that these four mechanisms work perfectly before there is the possibility of (natural) fertilization to occur.
So tell me what this less than "wholesale" change would be? Even when things are perfect it doesn't always work. Any errors in the instructions; any misshapen protein or incorrect control gene would render it inoperable.
Any mutation that prevents the sperm or egg fertilising will of course fail and so be deleted.
Any mutation that doesn't prevent the sperm and egg fertilising will survive and be passed on. It might even become dominant.
After many such mutations they might be enough to prevent successful fertilisation with the original egg or sperm but by then there would be two separate populations.

Your mistake is to presume every mutation would result in the failure to breed.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157879 Nov 13, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullcrap. Whether you add "ordered" or "random" energy to a system, you have still added energy, and if the amount is the same for each, the entropy change is the same for each. You want a painting 4 feet from the door and the artist puts it on the wrong side. Whoops, Random Energy Alert! Change the equation variables! Quit trying to whitewash a mud brick fence and calling it marble, ya dipstick.
Your premise is pure bias confirmation, believing (Yea and Amen, you Must BeLIEVAH, Mah Brothers!) that chemical interactions couldn't and didn't occur without a guiding hand and that life was initially "created" as highly complex systems. You can't think past your first mistake. You (and Creager) fail on so many levels.
There is no energy, work, or heat involved. This is statistics numbnuts. Join poly and Chumly in their birdbrain club.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157880 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no energy, work, or heat involved. This is statistics numbnuts. Join poly and Chumly in their birdbrain club.
Creager mentioned "energy" 7 times in your quote. The fundamental(ist) premise of it was purposefully applied versus random energy and its additive or subtractive effects on the total entropy of a system - and it was hogwash no matter what version/vision of fundamental(ist) crazy you cling to.
It seems that the birdbrains remain orders of magnitude more intelligent and honest than the bag of bricks club you and Creager pal around in.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157881 Nov 13, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Any mutation that prevents the sperm or egg fertilising will of course fail and so be deleted.
Any mutation that doesn't prevent the sperm and egg fertilising will survive and be passed on. It might even become dominant.
After many such mutations they might be enough to prevent successful fertilisation with the original egg or sperm but by then there would be two separate populations.
Your mistake is to presume every mutation would result in the failure to breed.
Until you can show me where a mutation of the 4 mechanisms genes does not derail the process, it is a show-stopper.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#157882 Nov 13, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Creager mentioned "energy" 7 times in your quote. The fundamental(ist) premise of it was purposefully applied versus random energy and its additive or subtractive effects on the total entropy of a system - and it was hogwash no matter what version/vision of fundamental(ist) crazy you cling to.
It seems that the birdbrains remain orders of magnitude more intelligent and honest than the bag of bricks club you and Creager pal around in.
Fabulous, you can count. Did you ever stop to think that just because he discusses energy, that doesn't mean it is involved in the definition of statistical entropy or its calculation? This is a non-partisan issue. You don't have to believe in evolution or creation to know how statistical entropy works. You are obviously a highly bigoted and prejudiced as well as stupid as all get-out evotard who hasn't a clue.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#157883 Nov 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fabulous, you can count. Did you ever stop to think that just because he discusses energy, that doesn't mean it is involved in the definition of statistical entropy or its calculation? This is a non-partisan issue. You don't have to believe in evolution or creation to know how statistical entropy works. You are obviously a highly bigoted and prejudiced as well as stupid as all get-out evotard who hasn't a clue.
You mean did I think that because he specifically (and erroneously) addressed the effects of energy on a system's entropy that it had nothing to do with the effects of energy on a system's entropy? Well, no. That takes cherry picking to a level so far beyond my abilities that I didn't even know it existed.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#157884 Nov 13, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
I was gonna put up my list of "97 Reasons Why People Laugh At Creationists", but Cowboy already posted it.

There are a lot more than 97.

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) 1 min Lucy 173,403
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 1 min Chimney1 81
The Definition of a Creationist Scientist 3 hr Zog Has-fallen 119
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 4 hr Zog Has-fallen 97
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 19 hr Chimney1 143,899
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 22 hr Zog Has-fallen 55
Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically prove... Fri Chimney1 134
More from around the web