Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180388 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.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171222 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need a paper. Eyes are irreducibly complex. That is a self evidence fact. It's up to you to provide a plausible pathway of you think a microbe could evolve into a worm.
And yet the fossil record shows that microbes existed long before worms. How do you account for that?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#171223 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic homology is not "genetic evidence"
Genetic homology is essential for evolution but not for a designer.
HTS wrote:
Genetic homology is perfectly consistent with intelligent design.
A very slow designer who doesn't like to make large changes.
HTS wrote:
You have no proof that any of your "millions-of-years" time frames are valid.
You're joking right?
HTS wrote:
Furthermore, you are introducing theology into the argument, imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes.
Why should I just accept your religion-based conjectures on faith?
I didn't say he wouldn't have created eyes by small changes over millions of years just that he wouldn't need to.
HTS wrote:
Show me an observed example of any step in eye evolution.
You want scientists to recreate something that took millions of years in just a few?
HTS

Mandan, ND

#171224 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole outer membrane would already be connected to the brain. Light sensitivity would follow the pathway already established by touch. And light sensitivity predates flatworms. It can be found in many bacteria, so the potential for sensing light would have already been present in the flatworm brain.
Leaves are light sensitive, without any apparent eye.
That's ridiculously simplistic. The nerve pathway "already established by touch" goes to a different part of the brain than the optic nerve. Bacteria don't have a brain or peripheral nerves. All theories of eye evolution that I've read start with a multicellular organism who suddenly develops a photosensitive spot in its integumentary system. You cannot realistically extend your proposed pathway all the way to photosensitive single cell life. Light sensitivity of bacteria cannot be explained by any proposed continuum with an image forming eye. There are no "photosensitive" cells in a single called organism.
I cannot accept your imaginative, special pleading arguments.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#171225 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the fossil record shows that microbes existed long before worms. How do you account for that?
Predictably, you change the subject when you're backed into a corner. Virtually every argument that I've posed is ultimately defended by appeals to the fossil record, which indicates that you cannot scientifically defend any of the precepts of evolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171226 Mar 19, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no evidence for evolution. I have over 100 different categories of evidence for creation. How does this not stack up?
It doesn't stack up very well at all against the peer reviewed scientific evidence for evolution.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171227 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic homology is not "genetic evidence"
Genetic homology is perfectly consistent with intelligent design.
You have no proof that any of your "millions-of-years" time frames are valid.
Furthermore, you are introducing theology into the argument, imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes.
Why should I just accept your religion-based conjectures on faith?
Show me an observed example of any step in eye evolution.
But it is you who is imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes. Science just shows what happened, without inventing any reason why it happened.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171228 Mar 19, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>

You want scientists to recreate something that took millions of years in just a few?
How about actually demonstrating that such a transformation is possible?
I again scoff at your "millions-of-years" declarations. They are not scientifically-based. You have no evidence that any fossils on this planet are over a few thousand years. Fossils, by defnition, CANNOT be directly dated. All you have is wishful thinking propped up by special pleading arguments.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#171229 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
That's ridiculously simplistic. The nerve pathway "already established by touch" goes to a different part of the brain than the optic nerve. Bacteria don't have a brain or peripheral nerves. All theories of eye evolution that I've read start with a multicellular organism who suddenly develops a photosensitive spot in its integumentary system. You cannot realistically extend your proposed pathway all the way to photosensitive single cell life. Light sensitivity of bacteria cannot be explained by any proposed continuum with an image forming eye. There are no "photosensitive" cells in a single called organism.
I cannot accept your imaginative, special pleading arguments.
Light sensitivity does not need a brain. It IS found in bacteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_pr...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171230 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is you who is imagining how a God would or would not have created eyes. Science just shows what happened, without inventing any reason why it happened.
You haven't "shown" anything. You have imagined that evolution created eyes.
You justify your position by imagining that a God would have conducted intelligent design in a different way. I have made no conjectures as to how a God would have created anything.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171231 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't stack up very well at all against the peer reviewed scientific evidence for evolution.
There is no such thing as "peer-reviewed scientific evidence for evolution". Legitimate peer review requires that all research be skeptically evaluated by others who have no predetermined commitment to evolution. That sort of objectivity is virtually non-existent in articles published in favor of evolution.

I would challenge you to find a single "peer-reviewed" article that qualifies according to the above criteria.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171232 Mar 19, 2014
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Light sensitivity does not need a brain. It IS found in bacteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_pr...
There is no conceptual continuum between light sensitive bacteria and a worm with a functional photosensitive spot. All of your posts are simplisitic smokescreens.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#171233 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> There is no such thing as "peer-reviewed scientific evidence for evolution". Legitimate peer review requires that all research be skeptically evaluated by others who have no predetermined commitment to evolution. That sort of objectivity is virtually non-existent in articles published in favor of evolution.
I would challenge you to find a single "peer-reviewed" article that qualifies according to the above criteria.
And who determines who has or does not have a "predetermined commitment to evolution"? You?
Ted

Springfield, IL

#171234 Mar 19, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Refuted on network tv just 2 nights ago.
You are comical.
The Big Bang Theory or The Big Bang Fact? Ask 98% of humans on earth and they would tell you God is real. So, you need to decided..........

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#171235 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How about actually demonstrating that such a transformation is possible?
I again scoff at your "millions-of-years" declarations. They are not scientifically-based. You have no evidence that any fossils on this planet are over a few thousand years. Fossils, by defnition, CANNOT be directly dated. All you have is wishful thinking propped up by special pleading arguments.
Volcanic rock can be dated and so fossils found in such rocks or their ash, can be directly dated (unless you think fossils in volcanic rock were planted there later).

"Less than two percent of the earth's fossils are preserved in volcanic rock, but researchers have identified a new one: the skull of a rhino that perished in a volcanic eruption 9.2 million years ago."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/...
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171236 Mar 19, 2014
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Volcanic rock can be dated and so fossils found in such rocks or their ash, can be directly dated (unless you think fossils in volcanic rock were planted there later).
"Less than two percent of the earth's fossils are preserved in volcanic rock, but researchers have identified a new one: the skull of a rhino that perished in a volcanic eruption 9.2 million years ago."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/...
That metholodology has been proven to be worthless. Ten year old volcanic rock from Mt. St. Helen's was "scientificially" dated to be up to 2.2 million years old. Why should I believe that a rhino perished 9.2 million years ago, when a ten year old sample cannot be accurately dated?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171237 Mar 19, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And who determines who has or does not have a "predetermined commitment to evolution"? You?
I am merely accepting what many of your own high priests have acknowledged. For example, R.C. Lewontin, a prominent evolutionary biologist, eloquently admitted this rigid materialism adhered to by proponents of Darwinism at the expense of objectivity:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI ADHERENCE to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

*(Lewontin R.C., "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#171238 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am merely accepting what many of your own high priests have acknowledged. For example, R.C. Lewontin, a prominent evolutionary biologist, eloquently admitted this rigid materialism adhered to by proponents of Darwinism at the expense of objectivity:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our A PRIORI ADHERENCE to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
*(Lewontin R.C., "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.
Yes, Lewontin has been critical of some aspects of Neo-Darwinism and especially critical of sociobiology. However, he remains an evolutionary biologist.

In any event, you did not answer my question.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#171239 Mar 19, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Lewontin has been critical of some aspects of Neo-Darwinism and especially critical of sociobiology. However, he remains an evolutionary biologist.
In any event, you did not answer my question.
I was merely debunking your statement that evolutionists do not have a predetermined commitment to materialism. Lewontin stated that there clearly is a predetermined belief in evolution. I can provide other quotes by other prominent evolutionary biologists who state the same thing... that evolution is founded on the assumption of materialism and a priori REJECTION of intelligent design. This is why I keep saying that evolution is not science... Scientific inquiry does not BEGIN with a fore drawn conclusion. A scientist looks at data objectively and then decides based on evidence. Lewontin admits that his inquiry begins with materialism...then he embarks on a question by structuring all of his research to conform to that paradigm.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#171240 Mar 19, 2014
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of limits? Until it can be shown that microevolution does lead to macroevolution you only have a hypothesis. Neither the fossil record nor genetics yet provides the necessary confirmation.
Sure it has. Been tested for decades, you'd have to be a fundie to not be aware of it.(shrug)

We're familiar with the concept of limits, but the problem is the limits are different to what you think they are. We know the limits because we know the things that can falsify evolution, as well as what confirm it. You don't know the limits because you think that the number 1 can never reach 1 million. Possibly because the Earth is 6000 years old.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#171241 Mar 19, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What you have is a hypothesis.
You have found gradations of what you believe creates conceptual continuity in proposed eye evolution. In addition, your explanations are simplistic and gloss over critical barriers of evolution... such as...
How did a system of cleaning (tear ducts and glands) just happen to develop?
How did the eyelid with rapid twitch muscles just happen to develop?
How did specific neural sensors develop within the conjunctiva to create feedback loops to the brain so as to trigger the eyelids to blink at the appropriate times?
How did the transparent cornea develop?
How did the lens develop?
How did the suspensory ligaments of the lens develop with neural feedback mechanisms, so that varying focal lengths would automatically result in signals to the brain to relax the ligaments so that the lens would change shape and focus.
How did the retina develop such that it could take light signals and transmit them into binary code?
How did the brain develop a system of integrating two separate images into one?
How did the optic nerve develop from the cerebral cortex?
How have offered simplistic stories and expect me to fill in the gaps with my expanded imagination. Fair enough. In order for your theory to be considered scientific, you have to test it. How do you test it? Not by coming up with more and more conjectures...but by demonstrating through experimentation that at least one of these steps could occur through mutations... or by demonstrating on paper that the nucleotide changes required for such a transformation are within the reach of chance. This has never been done. All of your conjectures invoke one extremely improbable event after another.
In your conjecture of the evolution of a photosensitive spot, you simplistically imagine that a light sensitive spot developed in the brain. How could that have been a survival advantage? You imagine that the spot gradually migrated to the skin...such a pathway might look gradual by only observing phenotype... but gradualism could not be extended to embryology. You imagine that an optic nerve gradually developed as an extension of the brain. Fine. You have a hypothesis. Now prove it. Show me an example of an experiment performed on laboratory animals that demonstrates such a phenomenon. Why should I accept your special pleading arguments in the face of so many conceptual impossibilities? Science is not just about making hypotheses... you have to test them... and all of your testing falls flat.,
Except for the fact it succeeds.

All you need to do, Hooter, is just provide one of the MANY falsifications we have provided you.

Explain orthology Hooter.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min Subduction Zone 32,042
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 3 min Dogen 229
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min Subduction Zone 74,877
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 17 min Dogen 4,059
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 25 min Dogen 300
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 27 min John 138
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 43 min Subduction Zone 162,001
More from around the web