Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#159825 Dec 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen fool, you keep being unclear in what you wish to discuss.
I am sure that I and many others can answer your questions. It would be nice if you could ask them properly.
Start here;

How did this first simple cell reproduce? Where did the information to reproduce come from? Why would it change from asexual reproduction which is what it had to use, to sexual reproduction?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#159826 Dec 10, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
It is far fetched to think the first life used photosynthesis to survive. What was the first life? Was it capable of using photosynthesis? Was the first life a plant?
No researcher thinks that. Not even close.

However, undersea vents provide "food" virtually ready made and it can be metabolised by far simpler processes than photosynthesis. Photosynthesis was probably a far later adaptation based on simpler pre-existing chemo-synthesis pathways that had already long developed and evolved in the undersea vent environments.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#159827 Dec 10, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Start here;
How did this first simple cell reproduce? Where did the information to reproduce come from? Why would it change from asexual reproduction which is what it had to use, to sexual reproduction?
Oh and...

"loaded with information for reproduction" no, life did not have to start out this way. In the right matrix RNA and DNA will self replicate through simple heating and cooling. I don't call that "loaded with information", its just a chemical reaction. Abiogenesis reactions would be akin to that, not to any "information loaded" behavior.

Same goes for "WHY would the first life reproduce". Again, you seem to imagine some life impulse where there are only chemicals interacting. You might as well ask why snowflakes or rust forms.

The key in abiogenesis is to determine, if the natural pathway occurred, what sequence of chemical and physical reactions could lead spontaneously to it and whether they could be expected to occur in a natural environment. Notions of elan vital or direction or intent are simply not part of the equation.

This is not so strange. Every one of the reactions occurring that built and maintain your body today are of exactly the same kind. Naturally occurring reactions that do not violate any physical laws and do not require that you or any other conscious agent "direct them" for them to occur.

Yes, I repeated the earlier post. Seems you didn't get it first time around.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#159828 Dec 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have pointed out, you are not too bright.
You are correct that no particular hypothesis has been confirmed, but the fact that there was no life on the Earth and later on there was means that a form of abiogenesis occurred. By denying this you are declaring that life has been on the Earth forever and we know that is not so.
As far as anyone knows life could have came from another galaxy we don't even know about yet. If it was life when it got here that sure as heck isn't abiogenesis now is it?

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#159829 Dec 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No researcher thinks that. Not even close.
However, undersea vents provide "food" virtually ready made and it can be metabolised by far simpler processes than photosynthesis. Photosynthesis was probably a far later adaptation based on simpler pre-existing chemo-synthesis pathways that had already long developed and evolved in the undersea vent environments.
Scientists discover huge freshwater reserves beneath the ocean.

"The volume of this water resource is a hundred times greater than the amount we've extracted from the Earth's sub-surface in the past century since 1900"

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment...

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#159830 Dec 10, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
It is far fetched to think the first life used photosynthesis to survive. What was the first life? Was it capable of using photosynthesis? Was the first life a plant?
The fist identifiable life is algae, but there may have been something before it. The first identifiable life were prokaryote's
or cyanobacteria. Plant life evolved from this and plant life is eukarya or eukaryotic cells.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#159831 Dec 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and...
"loaded with information for reproduction" no, life did not have to start out this way. In the right matrix RNA and DNA will self replicate through simple heating and cooling. I don't call that "loaded with information", its just a chemical reaction. Abiogenesis reactions would be akin to that, not to any "information loaded" behavior.
Same goes for "WHY would the first life reproduce". Again, you seem to imagine some life impulse where there are only chemicals interacting. You might as well ask why snowflakes or rust forms.
The key in abiogenesis is to determine, if the natural pathway occurred, what sequence of chemical and physical reactions could lead spontaneously to it and whether they could be expected to occur in a natural environment. Notions of elan vital or direction or intent are simply not part of the equation.
This is not so strange. Every one of the reactions occurring that built and maintain your body today are of exactly the same kind. Naturally occurring reactions that do not violate any physical laws and do not require that you or any other conscious agent "direct them" for them to occur.
Yes, I repeated the earlier post. Seems you didn't get it first time around.
That is all good in your eyes. but with out knowing or having the drive to reproduce not much, if anything would reproduce.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#159832 Dec 10, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as anyone knows life could have came from another galaxy we don't even know about yet. If it was life when it got here that sure as heck isn't abiogenesis now is it?
Sure ..you just shift the advent to another location.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#159833 Dec 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure ..you just shift the advent to another location.
lol. the big cover of it could have happened somewhere else. Science says it happened here on earth. So I guess I should have said "As far as anyone knows life could have came from another galaxy we don't even know about yet. If it was life when it got here that sure as heck isn't abiogenesis on EARTH now is it?"
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#159834 Dec 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not ignoring these questions - they ARE interesting. Merely pointing out that they are not relevant to the ToE.
Its you guys who keep trying to conflate the two, not us. Again, the logically flawed tactic of trying to throw doubt on what we do know with a high degree of confidence (evolution), by trying to conflate it with something else that we admittedly know far less about (abiogenesis).
Would a physics lecturer tolerate a student who said Relativity was not worth a bean because we don't know where mass came from in the first place? Or why the speed of light is what it is? That is analogous to what you are trying to do here.
False analogies Chimney. We are talking about life. We are not asking where, for example, water came from. We are talking about origins of life here. How *life* became what it is. It is talking about an earlier stage of the same exact subject matter. Origins. It *IS* the very crux of the matter isn't it? Until you have a good working hypothesis of how a simple cell came to be, you don't can't say anything about more complex life. That would be skipping over the most important part! This tired old canard about abiogenesis "not being part evolution" is a copout. Everybody knows that.
defender

Tucker, GA

#159835 Dec 10, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Listen fool, you keep being unclear in what you wish to discuss.

I am sure that I and many others can answer your questions. It would be nice if you could ask them properly.
Hey Chimney had the balls to answer what you were afraid to ... Don't whine about it now...
defender

Tucker, GA

#159837 Dec 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>We are dealing with identifiable and empirical causes, and include conjecture in hypothesis as long as it is testable and confirmable.
Now explain the test that confirm or reject your hypothesis,
that god created life. I would guess you only need to confirm a creator god exists. So go ahead show us how to "test" for
"creator god". BTW they tested for this thing for thousands of years,
still no positive confirmation, but we still have you saying it.
Right after you tell me all about the new star wars movie coming out... Lol...
defender

Tucker, GA

#159838 Dec 10, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>Start here;

How did this first simple cell reproduce? Where did the information to reproduce come from? Why would it change from asexual reproduction which is what it had to use, to sexual reproduction?
Lol... They have no idea!!...

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#159839 Dec 10, 2013
DarkBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
lol. the big cover of it could have happened somewhere else. Science says it happened here on earth. So I guess I should have said "As far as anyone knows life could have came from another galaxy we don't even know about yet. If it was life when it got here that sure as heck isn't abiogenesis on EARTH now is it?"

Abiogenesis isn't Earth specific, in fact it may well have happened elsewhere. Meteorite containing cyanobacteria like structures has been found and is the subject of much debate.
It doesn't in any way invalidate the hypothesis, but it does give it even more possibility of occurring, either here...or somewhere else.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#159840 Dec 10, 2013
CHIMNEY:

Is the "Calcified Hat" that you include in your periodic hateful rants against Creationists?

http://creation.com/fossil-hat

This is just clear evidence that things can turn to stone very quickly, and this process does not take "millions of years".
defender

Tucker, GA

#159841 Dec 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>False analogies Chimney. We are talking about life. We are not asking where, for example, water came from. We are talking about origins of life here. How *life* became what it is. It is talking about an earlier stage of the same exact subject matter. Origins. It *IS* the very crux of the matter isn't it? Until you have a good working hypothesis of how a simple cell came to be, you don't can't say anything about more complex life. That would be skipping over the most important part! This tired old canard about abiogenesis "not being part evolution" is a copout. Everybody knows that.
Thank you Cowboy... Well said as always... I'm merely trying to show that Abiogenesis is far from all the problems of their goofiness...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#159842 Dec 10, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
False analogies Chimney. We are talking about life. We are not asking where, for example, water came from. We are talking about origins of life here. How *life* became what it is. It is talking about an earlier stage of the same exact subject matter. Origins. It *IS* the very crux of the matter isn't it? Until you have a good working hypothesis of how a simple cell came to be, you don't can't say anything about more complex life. That would be skipping over the most important part! This tired old canard about abiogenesis "not being part evolution" is a copout. Everybody knows that.
Yes Urb, we know that you wish to conflate what we do know with what we don't know, and why you wish to do this. Its just another tired creationist tactic. ToE and Abio are separate because they rely on separate processes in order to occur.

In any case its still possible to me that God created life, though I do not believe in God.(Considering God a hypothetical possibility and believing in God are two different things)

The fact is we don't know.

What is not possible to me is your science denying 6000 year fable of YEC, conflicting as it does with the overwhelming and independently convergent evidence for an old universe and evolution. We all see how much you have to ignore and distort and downright lie about in order to maintain this fantasy of yours.

The evidence for evolution is in. The evidence for abiogenesis probably will be in the next few decades...but I do not need to believe that life began naturally in order to know that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

In other words, even if you finally convinced me that God exists, you still would not convince me that evolution never happened. Unless you could also convince me that God is the Great Deceiver of course, planting all kinds of evidence to lead honest men astray.

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#159843 Dec 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis isn't Earth specific, in fact it may well have happened elsewhere. Meteorite containing cyanobacteria like structures has been found and is the subject of much debate.
It doesn't in any way invalidate the hypothesis, but it does give it even more possibility of occurring, either here...or somewhere else.
What is the current hypothesis of abiogenesis? Where and how does science say/think life started?
defender

Tucker, GA

#159844 Dec 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Abiogenesis isn't Earth specific, in fact it may well have happened elsewhere. Meteorite containing cyanobacteria like structures has been found and is the subject of much debate.
It doesn't in any way invalidate the hypothesis, but it does give it even more possibility of occurring, either here...or somewhere else.
Yeah Darth Tater shot one down with the Ion Blaster...

“It Is What It Is”

Level 2

Since: Jul 13

Alberta, Canada

#159846 Dec 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The fist identifiable life is algae, but there may have been something before it. The first identifiable life were prokaryote's
or cyanobacteria. Plant life evolved from this and plant life is eukarya or eukaryotic cells.
I pretty much doubt that algae was the first life form. just because we can't find it doesn't mean there wasn't life long before what they can identify.

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... 4 min Phillip 494
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min Phillip 52,195
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 21 min scientia potentia... 1,204
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 52 min replaytime 218,825
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 24,885
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 157,753
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web