Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179628 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

#161864 Jan 12, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Listen up, gimp, a hypothesis IS speculation...conjecture. BTW, proving what caused the molecules to "lean" one way instead of the other is NOT proving that it's what caused life itself. You don't know that it was a catalyst OF life.

Gimp? I will have to look that up.

At any rate your statement is still wrong. In science a hypothesis does not mean the same thing as speculation or conjecture. Speculation can come first but it is not a hypothesis. To have a hypothesis means you have an explanation that is consistent with the available data and a means to falsify (test the hypothesis). Once that hypothesis is tested you have a theory. In real life it is dirtier than this, but essentially this spells it out.

As to the second part of your statement we DO know the catalyst of life. It is called chemistry.

Yes that is cheeky, but it is still true. Chemicals tend to evolve over time. through interactions with each other and sources of energy. That is just the way mater in our universe is.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#161865 Jan 12, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
1st, No.
2nd, No.

Actually it is maybe and no.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#161867 Jan 12, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
1st, No.
2nd, No.
Yes and yes.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#161868 Jan 12, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Both are definitely a No.
Don't forget that you don't want pesky old science to be taught either. After all it is science classes we are talking about. No sense bringing science into it.

“Ahoyhoy all!”

Level 1

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#161869 Jan 12, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Both are definitely a No.
The responses to my questions tell me that the debate from the religious is nothing about fairness since to be fair minded would be to expose children to the whole debate, which would necessarily include other creation myths. Nor is it about equal time since equal time would necessitate teaching Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in churches. Churches in the USA do receive state subsidy in the form of tax relief and therefore there is scope for arguing that the government could prescribe this if 'fairness' is indeed what underpins this debate.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#161872 Jan 12, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
You must come from a family not concerned with expanding your gene pool, huh?
Ah yes, attack me rather than my statement. I take it I was correct.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#161873 Jan 12, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
So based on your ignorant presumptions, you have already tried to poison the pool and shut down debate.
You lack skills scooter.
Honestly. In a science class, what would you propose as an alternative to evolution? You can't teach religion there, because that is unlawful. There are no viable alternatives to the theory of evolution, so what would you debate?

If you could debate religion in a public school then why couldn't you offer the alternative in a church?

In a hypothetical situation where you could debate religion and science, why would you only offer one religion a soapbox when there are so many?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#161874 Jan 12, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
You must come from a family not concerned with expanding your gene pool, huh?
I remember you "EXPERT". This is what you brought to this thread before. You don't really have much to debate with intelligently as I recall.
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#161875 Jan 12, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Amusing to see you are going down the same pathway that Poly and I did with this idiot. He does not understand entropy at all. But that wont stop him.
The urbacious one simply doesn't understand it and if he does is just behaving the same way as anyone that cannot defend their point or defend a link they found that supports their belief. Just like the way I got treated regarding emergent consciousness. No one would address and acknowledge the points I was making. Anyway, you came clean about it, I felt like you and I kind of shook hands in our last exchange on the subject.

Why did you try so hard and last so long trying to get him to admit the obvious? I guess it's the same reason I tried so hard to show that emergent consciousness is not a slam dunk, and why I spent an entire year going round and round with Frank Miller about chemistry much of which was totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. My motivation was partly too much free time, partly a personal challenge to get him to admit he was a BSer and didn't really understand the chemistry he was talking about, and partly because it was educational and entertaining to talk chemistry again.

Hey, was there any consensus regarding your idea of re-radiated energy breaking the SLoT? I'm sure there is no breach of SLoT there. It hit me that the entropy is probably justified/balanced before the radiation even leaves the atmosphere as it travels through it. And if not then it is balanced by the non-nothingness of outer space?
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#161876 Jan 12, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
What is the origin of homochirality in biological materials such as alpha amino acids and polypeptides? Is there any comprehensive, naturalistic explanation?

This is just a small initial step in the origin of life research, so what does the research say? The existence of homochirality in all organisms on earth raises a very important question that is not satisfactorily explained in any current theory. How is that?

The transition from chemicals to bio-chemical life is as elusive as ever. It is clear that there is a huge gap between molecular chirality and molecular evolution.

This is a huge stumbling block for evolution.

Maybe God used a super-fancy 3D printer to make life, I don't know.

But as far as we know today, in 2014, we also don't have a clue how it could have happened by any naturalistic route

I will back you up on abiogenesis anyday but not on evolution. You're only digging yourself further into a hole. You'd be better off simply repeating that evolution is not proven.

Even with abiogenesis you can't argue that the SLoT is violated.
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#161877 Jan 12, 2014
I believe that a spontaneous abiogenesis process would have to violate some natural law/s, which may or may not include the SLoT. There are tons of reasons to believe abiogenesis was not possible as a spontaneous process at least. There is no evidence either way though. But it won't stop the proponents of emergent consciousness from trying to say they have evidence.

This is important even though it may seem trivial.
**** I would actually sooner believe that entropic factors such as reaction rate kinetics and molecular transport, position/availability factors and contamination of products with reactants etc (hindering any further reaction, let alone specific reaction), among other things,
would make a spontaneous abiogenesis process impossible before I believe that it was made impossible by the SLoT.

IOW I donít think abiogenesis violates the SLoT as much as I think it needed conscious manipulation in order to overcome certain entropic factors that seem impossible to overcome. I use to believe that abiogenesis violates natural law. Why should external conscious manipulation violate any laws?

Now I think it's more like the only way we can ever prove abiogenesis was either spontaneous or not is to go back in time and observe it. Hey if we can go back in time then I'm sure we can arrange some time lapse photography :)
IOW we would be able to tell if what we see is being manipulated by consciousness or not. So don't count on an answer any time soon.

They might be able to get a few nitrogen bases to combine to form rudimentary RNA, but itís still just a few combinations out of a gazillion that need to happen. Reaction rate kinetics alone make it about impossible for any specific proteins to occur in nature. RNA/DNA is part of a system too; proteins are part of that system. How do we get to protein synthesis without having *complex* protein in existence already?
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#161878 Jan 12, 2014
I meant to delete the first line of my last post, or at least change it to, "I believe that a spontaneous abiogenesis process needs, at the very minimum, an external conscious manipulation in order to overcome otherwise impossible entropic factors, but there is no reason to believe that an external conscious manipulation would violate natural law".

And I'll repeat that the only way to ever know whether what we have qualifies as evidence is to either go back in time and observe abiogenesis, or succeed in a plausible spontaneous testube process from start to finish; from raw materials to life.
Janitor

Vancouver, WA

#161879 Jan 12, 2014
lightside wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree all creatures have the ability to adapt to their environment but you never see either in the fossil records or present day example of one species turning into another ie- an elephant into a manatee their is no evidence..
I don't recall anyone ever expounding a theory that indicated a manatee and an elephant were evolutions of the same creature, other than the fact that both are mammals.
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#161880 Jan 12, 2014
Anyone catch the movie "Her"?
Awesome movie on many fronts.
Anyway it seems more consistent with an external consciousness than a consciousness that is emergent. But I guess it could be consistent with emergent consciousness just as well. They didn't get into that but I guess they would have us assume that it was just an advanced program that was able to take on the characteristics of consciousness and that we could not tell whether it was as real as our own consciousness or not.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#161881 Jan 12, 2014
Janitor wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't recall anyone ever expounding a theory that indicated a manatee and an elephant were evolutions of the same creature, other than the fact that both are mammals.
I also don't recall anyone ON THIS THREAD claiming manatees and elephants were closely related....but apparently they are.

http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/04/sireni...

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#161882 Jan 12, 2014
Who Knows wrote:
I meant to delete the first line of my last post, or at least change it to, "I believe that a spontaneous abiogenesis process needs, at the very minimum, an external conscious manipulation in order to overcome otherwise impossible entropic factors, but there is no reason to believe that an external conscious manipulation would violate natural law".
And I'll repeat that the only way to ever know whether what we have qualifies as evidence is to either go back in time and observe abiogenesis, or succeed in a plausible spontaneous testube process from start to finish; from raw materials to life.

We came sum up your whole argument to....you believe that life had a creator.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#161884 Jan 12, 2014
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>
I will back you up on abiogenesis anyday but not on evolution. You're only digging yourself further into a hole. You'd be better off simply repeating that evolution is not proven.
Even with abiogenesis you can't argue that the SLoT is violated.
There is no genetic mechanism for vertical/forward evolution to occur. In other words, in order for genetic mutation plus natural selection to work, you first would need a mutation that is a benefit and would favor being selected and fixed into a population. There have been a few beneficial mutations identified but these always result in a loss of information and a net overall loss of fitness. Mutations are errors and copying mistakes and as such only cause a degradation in information and fitness. We Creationists believe that the genome was created in the beginning but has been slowly deteriorating (just like everything else in the universe) ever since. So, since there is no identified mechanism for improvements or for adding any new information to the genome that didn't exist before and that might lead to some new or nascent organ, limb, or tissue, it follows that genetic mutation plus selection cannot lead to any new type of organisms.

And that's just one problem. Then there are all the built-in error checking and correcting mechanisms built into the cell to reverse any accidental errors from taking hold. There are species-specific fertilization controls - at least three of them - that prevent any offspring from a different species. How the sperm travels and finds the egg; how the sperm penetrates the egg; how the gamete divides and shuffles the chromosomes. These mechanisms would also prevent any such speciation from occurring.

I could go on and on but these issues are already known by evolutionists who are going to believe in it in spite of all the odds against it. In spite of not having any transitional fossils after looking for over a hundred years and finding millions of fossils that are all of fully formed species. In spite of breeding in a lab fruit flies and E-coli for some 50,000 generations - the equivalent of thousands of "evolutionary timelines" of human evolution - and no evolution noted. Of course not. You could go back in time as far as you want to believe and it would still be the same fruit fly and the same E-coli.(Which is exactly what has been done!)

So you believe whatever you want to believe, I am going strictly by the evidence, and the evidence clearly says no evolution.
Who Knows

Brecksville, OH

#161885 Jan 12, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:

We came sum up your whole argument to....you believe that life had a creator.
You should know that I believe that if matter/energy is in existence then it must have always been in existence. I don't believe in creation. How does it imply creation when I say I believe in an eternal consciousness? How does it imply creation when I believe that since there is 'motion', there must have always been motion? If motion did not exist then please tell me how it could come into existence. Ready, go....

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#161886 Jan 12, 2014
Who Knows wrote:
<quoted text>You should know that I believe that if matter/energy is in existence then it must have always been in existence. I don't believe in creation. How does it imply creation when I say I believe in an eternal consciousness? How does it imply creation when I believe that since there is 'motion', there must have always been motion? If motion did not exist then please tell me how it could come into existence. Ready, go....
All that was created with the space/time continuum with the big bang.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#161887 Jan 12, 2014
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I also don't recall anyone ON THIS THREAD claiming manatees and elephants were closely related....but apparently they are.
http://etb-whales.blogspot.com/2012/04/sireni...
Is there something in the evolutionist's drinking water that causes these hallucinations? LSD perhaps?

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min renee 30,998
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 30 min Patrick 13,168
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 53 min Blitzking 197,199
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr DanFromSmithville 150,891
Another "gap" gets closed 11 hr MIDutch 1
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates May 21 Zog Has-fallen 15
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) May 17 Bkd 1,746
More from around the web