Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180382 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#159991 Dec 13, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What in your own words is a fundie and what in your own words is a Christian. I don't want link, or a plagiarism. I want your own words.

Why are my words important? What if someone explains it better than I can?

The short version is that fundamentalism is a modern day "cult". It did not exist as such before the mid 1800's. Fundamentalism imposes modern day beliefs and ideas on the Bible (example: literalism) that did not exist in the time of the writers of the Bible. Fundamentalism also emphasizes the teachings of Paul at the expense of the teaching of Jesus. Jesus taught love, forgiveness, equality, "us" not "them" and a morality based on those principles. Paul's teachings are more judgmental, emphasizes they are different & ergo wrong, only WE are right, accept and love only the deserving, not all people.....

I sometimes call fundamentalist "Paulists", but that is really not fair to Paul. He teachings are not that bad until seen through the light of literalism.

I hope that helps.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#159992 Dec 13, 2013
Rapid Evolution of Novel Forms: Environmental Change Triggers Inborn Capacity for Adaptation

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#159993 Dec 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Rapid Evolution of Novel Forms: Environmental Change Triggers Inborn Capacity for Adaptation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/...
But they're still FISH!

:-P

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#159994 Dec 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
But they're still FISH!
:-P

Indeed, and are likely to remain so.
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#159995 Dec 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bub. The burden of proof falls to the claimant. No one has to provide evidence that it is not possible. It is up to you to provide evidence it is.
<quoted text>
Nope. That is exactly what you are doing.
<quoted text>
The only "agenda" is science. Tough if that's too hard for you.
<quoted text>
I have no bandwagon. I don't take WAGs as valid without evidence.
<quoted text>
So go find another.{shrug}
<quoted text>
You are the one who uses terms like instantaneous and finish lines. I told you that you haven't defined how those terms can be applied. And you still haven't. So they're useless.
You whine about not being able to define what consciousness is or where or how it originates but that doesn't stop you on making claims as to where it resides. See anything a little odd here?
<quoted text>
Of course you don't.
<quoted text>
No, go back to sleep. Perhaps you'll have another dream where consciousness is based on gravitons.
But bring the evidence next time.
You're only making it more evident that you really do have an agenda. "The burden of proof falls to the claimant". Exactly. You claim you know how it originates. I simply say what I *believe* to be the possibilities while maintaining that no one knows what it really is. For you to act like we know how or where it originates is simply lying, period. I don't act like I know, although you attempt to make it appear that way. You guys are a hoot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#159996 Dec 13, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>You're only making it more evident that you really do have an agenda. "The burden of proof falls to the claimant". Exactly. You claim you know how it originates.
No, doofus. What I have said is all indications are that it based on cellular/n neuron activity (which is, in turn, based on various molecules, chemicals, etc). You have no indication that there is another, quantum, basis.

You're claiming that science is on the wrong track. That is a claim and yes, if you make that claim, it is up to you to provide evidence to support it
Who Knows wrote:
I simply say what I *believe* to be the possibilities while maintaining that no one knows what it really is.
Good for you.
Who Knows wrote:
For you to act like we know how or where it originates is simply lying, period.
Oh, now we off into whiny, little bitch mode. "You're all meanies and big, fat liars because you don't accept my goofy ideas." Cry me a river.
Who Knows wrote:
I don't act like I know, although you attempt to make it appear that way.
I know that you don't know. But your game is no one knows, no one has any idea and no one can prove me wrong. BFD.
Who Knows wrote:
You guys are a hoot.
And you're hilarious.
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#159997 Dec 13, 2013
[QUOTE who=”MikeF”]
Without a precise definition of exactly what defines your "something", you cannot posit any finish lines.[/QUOTE]Cmon Mike, I said,“no matter its (precise) definition”. Sure it needs to be defined but we don’t have enough to define it yet. Which is why we cannot yet place this “line”. It needs to be placed before we can define it. Are you getting it yet?
What silly agenda is that?
Convincing the world there is no such thing as free will or any form of “higher power” or permanent intelligence in existence. I would also like to keep religion out of science but I won't lie to accomplish it.
Eternal energy. Wow.
No one knows but what would you propose, that it came into existence from nothingness? Or that it will someday disappear from existence?
Pretty hard to refute the concept that consciousness is emergent from matter. Please provide an example of consciousness that is not. The Force maybe?
Hard to refute? There is no established mechanism of consciousness in the first place so there is nothing to refute ya foo.
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#159998 Dec 13, 2013
MikeF wrote:
No, doofus. What I have said is all indications are that it based on cellular/n neuron activity (which is, in turn, based on various molecules, chemicals, etc). You have no indication that there is another, quantum, basis.

You're claiming that science is on the wrong track. That is a claim and yes, if you make that claim, it is up to you to provide evidence to support it
Jesus dude. I don't care what indications you have; they are not direct evidence, they are associations and in any case, you simply don't have enough to make your claim that you know what gives rise to consciousness, period. Until you do I suggest you settle down and quit acting like a creationist that isn't getting their way.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#159999 Dec 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of you are gay, isn't that right?
Whatever turns you on Urb. Least it keeps your mind off your sister.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#160000 Dec 13, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No thanks Mike. I'm straight.
And you sound as convincing as always.

:-)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#160001 Dec 13, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>Look, obviously a rock is nothing like a human. But how do we know that consciousness doesn’t exist separately from the conduit (lifeform) using the neural network only as a conduit rather than originating from it? We don’t.
Then how do you know rocks aren't conscious? You don't.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#160002 Dec 13, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
Cmon Mike, I said,“no matter its (precise) definition”. Sure it needs to be defined but we don’t have enough to define it yet. Which is why we cannot yet place this “line”. It needs to be placed before we can define it. Are you getting it yet?
I get it just fine thank you very much.
Who Knows wrote:
Convincing the world there is no such thing as free will or any form of “higher power” or permanent intelligence in existence. I would also like to keep religion out of science but I won't lie to accomplish it.
What the hell are you talking about. I haven't said a damn thing about free will nor have I said there is no such thing as a higher power or permanent intelligence. What I have said is there is no evidence of a higher power nor of permanent intelligence. I allow for the possibility - however remote - but wishful thinking doesn't cut it.
Who Knows wrote:
No one knows but what would you propose, that it came into existence from nothingness? Or that it will someday disappear from existence?
They are possibilities.

http://io9.com/new-calculations-suggest-the-u...
Who Knows wrote:
Hard to refute? There is no established mechanism of consciousness in the first place so there is nothing to refute ya fool.
Yeah. I'm the fool.{shrug}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#160003 Dec 13, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus dude. I don't care what indications you have; they are not direct evidence, they are associations and in any case, you simply don't have enough to make your claim that you know what gives rise to consciousness, period. Until you do I suggest you settle down and quit acting like a creationist that isn't getting their way.
I didn't make that claim. What I did say was what the evidence indicates.

Meanwhile, you have nothing. At all. Just an idea.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#160004 Dec 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, and are likely to remain so.
Never.

One day, they are fish-food.

;-)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#160005 Dec 13, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>You're only making it more evident that you really do have an agenda. "The burden of proof falls to the claimant". Exactly. You claim you know how it originates. I simply say what I *believe* to be the possibilities while maintaining that no one knows what it really is. For you to act like we know how or where it originates is simply lying, period. I don't act like I know, although you attempt to make it appear that way. You guys are a hoot.
Actually I say *you're* lying. Until you sign yourself up for my food-blender experiment.
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#160006 Dec 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
I see consciousness as part of a continuum:

1. Self-consciousness: in this situation, there is an internal model of the being itself which is compared with the model of the external world. This seems to exist in humans after about 3-4 years old, chimpanzees, Bonobo, and a few other species (elephants, for example).

2. Consciousness: here there is a complex model of the external world but without a corresponding model of the mental state. This is common to most mammals and birds. I am less certain about the existence of this level in fish.

3. Awareness: In this, there is a model of the external world that is used to navigate and plan for eventualities. In this, whatever model exists for the external world is minimal, with most interactions on the level of reflexes. While I would say that fish, for example, have this level, I am pretty clear that jellyfish do not.

4. Sensitivity: In this, there is not a model of anything, but instead fairly direct reaction to stimuli. Most plants have this level of interaction along with, say, jellyfish and sponges. In fact, this seems to be the minimal level for most life. There is still a fairly large number of types of reaction and even some delays as the mechanisms of response often take time to effect.

5. Complex interaction: In this, there are a number of types of interaction, but not nearly as many as the level above it. Most of the interaction is understandable at the level of chemistry or basic physics, although it can be quite complex at times. Complex mixtures can exhibit this stage.

6. Simple interaction. Here, the types of interaction are quite limited. Simple compounds show this level as well as most molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. There is a sense in which existence is equivalent to having the ability to interact.

All of these represent degrees of interaction with the environment and with self. Consciousness is at the top of this spectrum and simple interaction is at the bottom. I don't see any of these as having hard lines of demarcation with each rather gradually shading into the ones above and below.
ok so pretty much like I said, you believe it is, in some form or another, a process of sensing, analyzing and responding. But all this is besides the point; all I’m saying is that it doesn’t matter what either of us believe it is, the fact is no one knows what it is or where or how it originates.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#160007 Dec 13, 2013
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus dude
Nah, just Dude.
Who Knows wrote:
I don't care what indications you have; they are not direct evidence, they are associations and in any case,
So they are only associations, kinda like mass and gravity, as opposed to crazy people at full moons.

“Shrug is all I know”

Since: Dec 13

Birkenhead, UK

#160008 Dec 13, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I say *you're* lying. Until you sign yourself up for my food-blender experiment.
(Shrug)
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#160009 Dec 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
The problem is that essentially everything in the real world is *defined* operationally. Something has a charge because it moves in response to electric fields and something generates electric fields because it makes charges move. We start with simple phenomena, like static electricity, separate out what we find interesting, give it a name and study those interactions.

The same is true for consciousness as it is for charge: it is defined operationally, at least at first, and then the phenomenon is studied further. So what actual phenomenon are you wanting to study? You use the word 'consciousness' as if everyone agrees to what it means. But that is clearly *not* the case if you use it to describe something that a rock can have. So what phenomenon of a rock would you say shows consciousness? How do you define the term so that it is even *possible* for a rock to have consciousness?

The way that I know that I am changing consciousness instead of merely changing the conduit of consciousness is the same way I know that I am changing a charge rather than something that is a 'conduit for charge'. At a basic level, the concepts are precisely the same. So simplicity of language says that I am changing the thing rather than a conduit that consistently follows the thing.
I understand about “operationally”, sure. But, it’s not the same. The way you can “know” you are “changing consciousness” is only because YOU define it to be something emergent of the matter it is associated with. But reality does not care what we want it to be. You repeat yourself over and over ad infinitum to the creationists and I do the same to you. They won’t see the middle way of unbiased science, and it seems until you admit that you haven’t enough evidence to define consciousness, you will never allow science to be unbiased either.

As I have said, you are free to define something so that we can make reference to it as long as it is not intended to be taken as an accepted overall definition implying we know what it is.

Again, why are you not attempting to insist that gravity is emergent of something in particular? Why just consciousness? Same for anything fundamental; why stop there? Why not just accept that consciousness is not definable yet?
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#160010 Dec 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
OK, please give a definition of the term 'consciousness' that makes it different than the ability to show consciousness. Make sure this definition is something testable.
You have disqualified yourself right there, by saying,“ability to *show*…”.
How is the ‘ability to show something’ the same as that particular ‘something’? I have a pimple on my @$$ but I can’t show it because my @$$ is permanently rooted to my chair. Do I really have a pimple?

I’m telling you we can’t define it and you ask me for a definition. Cmon poly. But we can define it as best we can as we do with gravity or any fundamental force. How about something like this :
Consciousness :*that* which makes sentient life sentient.

How about that? You should be happy with that; and so should I. You have your sentience in there and I have the reservation/implication that an attempt at defining the origin of it has not been made. Seems the only fair way to me. Shake on it?

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min marksman11 162,446
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min moment of reason 221,805
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min 15th Dalai Lama 76,872
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) 36 min yehoshooah adam 4,304
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 1 hr Science 430
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 4 hr John 712
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr John 32,165
More from around the web