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.

HTS

Mandan, ND

#171423 Mar 20, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>

The earth has been MEASURED, using MULTIPLE methods, to be slightly over 4.5 billion years old. That is NOT a theory or hypothesis. That is a MEASUREMENT that is CONSISTANT across multiple means of discerning the age of our world.
Here is the fatal flaw of your logic...
You ASSUME knowledge as to HOW the earth was created.
If you're and atheist, you assume that it resulted from extreme heat 4.5 billion years ago.
If you believe that an intelligent being created the earth, you assume that he created matter out of nothing, or that the matter of the earth was in a state of extreme heat at the time of creation.

You cannot assume that the state of matter as indicated by concentrations of radioisotopes parallels the time of creation.

If random forces created the earth, the matter of the earth might come together one million years ago through coalescence of 4.5 billion year old rocks.

If God created the earth 10,000 years ago, He might have used 4.5 billion year old rocks to do so.

There is no scientific way to determine when the matter of the earth came together to form a sphere. Matter is, as far as is known, infinitely old.

“The Bible is no science book”

Level 4

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#171424 Mar 20, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is the fatal flaw of your logic...
You ASSUME knowledge as to HOW the earth was created.
If you're and atheist, you assume that it resulted from extreme heat 4.5 billion years ago.
If you believe that an intelligent being created the earth, you assume that he created matter out of nothing, or that the matter of the earth was in a state of extreme heat at the time of creation.
You cannot assume that the state of matter as indicated by concentrations of radioisotopes parallels the time of creation.
If random forces created the earth, the matter of the earth might come together one million years ago through coalescence of 4.5 billion year old rocks.
If God created the earth 10,000 years ago, He might have used 4.5 billion year old rocks to do so.
There is no scientific way to determine when the matter of the earth came together to form a sphere. Matter is, as far as is known, infinitely old.
Oh my, did my eyes just see this? Wow, talk about making stuff up, you absolutely take the cake. Come get your prize.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#171425 Mar 20, 2014
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you'd have to abandon belief in Bronze Age mythology.
<quoted text>
And every fiber in the being of those who flu the planes into the WTC told them they were doing good. "Fiber of my being" isn't a good test.
<quoted text>
Evolution is fact. Sorry science contradicts your faith.
The facts are what I'm going on. You are just going on an ideology. The fact is that the two pillars of evolution are mutations and fossils and both of those fly in the face of your "facts".

If you believe that life evolved on this earth over billions of years, and there are now millions of species alive which are only supposed to represent a tiny fraction of what has gone extinct since LUCA, then there must have been millions upon millions of organisms that have lived an died, over and over again over all those billions of years. Yet, there isn't a single clear, unambiguous set of fossils, no clean series, showing the smooth transition from one type of organism to another. Not even a single one! Instead of having millions of them, you have none. Doesn't that grab your attention in the slightest? You have no evidence. What is in fact observed is the opposite of what you predict.

Similarly, we have millions of species living today. We have studied in detailed the most lab-suitable species with the fastest generation times. Given the relative fast generation times of those lab species, there is no evidence that a mutation can create new information of the type that would be required to change one type of species into another type. Not even the most minimal first step. In Lenski's long-term E. coli evolution experiment, he has recorded over 50,000 generations but still no whisper of a hint that this has occurred (please don't argue citrate). Mutations destroy, they do not create. So instead of seeing mutation create new organism-changing forward progression, new information-containing genetic mutations as common place and routing, you have none.

So in both pillars of evolutionary evidence, fossils and mutations, you have the polar opposite observations pointing you in the exact, 180 degree wrong direction. And then there are numerous other powerful evidences that point in the wrong direction against evolution. There is no bottom line because there isn't anything to compare. The theory of evolution has failed completely. All the facts point against evolution. Period.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#171426 Mar 20, 2014
Mutations destroy, they do not create. So instead of seeing mutations create new organism-changing, forward progression, new information-containing genetic mutations as commonplace and routine, you have none.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#171427 Mar 20, 2014
Every living organism is equipped with powerful, effective species change prevention controls. In fact, these built-in genetic controls to prevent change is part of what defines what it is to be alive and without them, the species would quickly go extinct. And it's not just genetic and cellular machinery. It's behavioral and environmental and muti-dimensional. It also often involves beneficial symbiotic relationships with plants and animals as well. The purpose of all this is to prevent the species from changing into some different type of species.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171428 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
You are losing this debate badly, Chimney, and I am embarrassed for you.
You actually believe the spaceship analogy is valid? Obviously enormous changes would need to be made to a spaceship to fly to a galaxy two million light years from earth... If that is the sort of logic you're using to substantiate your belief in evolution, you are standing on very shakey ground.
Hardly, since you're the one whose premise is based on how do you know where you there therefore reality was different in the past. We on the other hand have at least heard of the limitations of lightspeed.
HTS wrote:
I see that you always revert to the fossil record, because you cannot defend your hypothesis with scientific explanations. I find it curious that you keep using the 3-boned jaw/ossicles transformation, while ignoring the conceptual impossibility of such a pathway. You continually rely of the homology argument, the failure of which has been documented by Dr. deBeer's research.
I also find your logic to be very bizarre... You keep saying that the fossil record is true to nested hierarchies, while in the same breath making the contradictory statement that it's full of transitionals. You can't have it both ways.
Nested hierarchies and transitionals aren't a contradiction you numnutz.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171429 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not provided any scientific evidence that the 3-boned middle ear of mammals evolved from the jaw of a reptile. You have only made broad statements.
And your statements that the "pattern of variation in pseudogenes, ubiquitous proteins, and ERVs is slam dunk independent corroboration of the fossil record. " That's nothing but a transparent smokescreen. In the first place, you are ignoring that the junk DNA paradigm has been proven to be false. Secondly, how can genetic evidence "independently corroborate" the fossil record? You cannot analyze the DNA of a fossil species.
It is irrelevant how many millions of hours of meticulous field research has been conducted over the past 150 years. It is all founded on an a priori PHILOSOPHICAL rejection of Intelligent design. Therefore, it is not science.
It doesn't accept or reject ID. There is simply no evidence for ID to reject. And yes, ERV's are an independent corroboration of common ancestry. This has long been demonstrated.

If not, then explain orthology. Without whining about mean old atheists.

Take your time, wussy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171430 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you claim that man evolved from apes, it is up to you to refute every single line of evidence to the contrary.
You fail to see that your attitude is "evolution by default". When a conceptual impossibility is presented, you immediately dismiss it under the pretense "prove to me that there is a god, or evolution is true."
There are no lines of evidence to the contrary. Remember it's us who provides evidence and you merely dismiss it all as atheism instead of debunking it. ID is YOUR default. Evolution is based on all that evidence you dodge.

Like orthology.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171431 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you're so enamored with the evolution of ear ossicles, I did a google search and read what evidence was presented, trying to give evolution every benefit of the doubt. I was, frankly, stunned at how weak your argument is. There was no conceptual explanation as to how a functional jaw could have transmutated into an organ of hearing. All that was presented was morphological homology of jaw bones... And no actual photographs were shown...only embellished drawings.
As far as ape/human evolution...I've already debunked your Turkana boy, clearly demonstrating that all of the morphological changes seen in that skeleton could have easily been achieved through selective breeding. Notice that the axial skeleton is 100% human. This is because the axial skeleton does not exhibit nearly as much variation as the skull. If you could show a great toe evolving into an opposable digit, and a more ape-like axial skeleton, you would have an argument. At this point, you have nothing. Humans are known to exhibit significant morphological variability. You have no evidence that mutations can result in enhanced intelligence, transmutation from quadruped to upright, etc.
You're lying again Hoots.

Explain orthology.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171432 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
Here is the fatal flaw of your logic...
You ASSUME knowledge as to HOW the earth was created.
If you're and atheist, you assume that it resulted from extreme heat 4.5 billion years ago.
No, we hypothesize that it resulted from gravity 4.5B years ago.
HTS wrote:
If you believe that an intelligent being created the earth, you assume that he created matter out of nothing, or that the matter of the earth was in a state of extreme heat at the time of creation.
No, if you believe in an intelligent creator then it can do whatever the f ck YOU want it to.

Because it ain't science.
HTS wrote:
You cannot assume that the state of matter as indicated by concentrations of radioisotopes parallels the time of creation.
No, it MIGHT be possible that the Earth is technically much much much older, and some catacalysm blew it up before gravity forced the debris back together again, resetting the age of the rocks at that point - a trick we learned from observing volcanic activity. However there's currently no reason to think this occurred.
HTS wrote:
If random forces created the earth, the matter of the earth might come together one million years ago through coalescence of 4.5 billion year old rocks.
Random forces did NOT create the Earth, period. The opposite of intelligence is NOT random.

But since you can't accept this, or refute it, you can't help but beat up your straw-man. As straw-men is all you rely on, this remains why we are unrefuted.
HTS wrote:
If God created the earth 10,000 years ago, He might have used 4.5 billion year old rocks to do so.
I agree.

And this means evidence is irrelevant to your position. Is the Earth young? God made it young. Is the Earth old? God made it LOOK old but it's actually young.

Therefore evidence doesn't matter. And you just admitted it.

Again.
HTS wrote:
There is no scientific way to determine when the matter of the earth came together to form a sphere. Matter is, as far as is known, infinitely old.
Wrong. There is no PHILOSOPHICAL way to determine the ages of things, because evidence does not matter to you.

It's YOUR PHILOSOPHY that prevents you from understanding how science works. It's not the failure of science since we KNOW science to work.

Dummy.(shrug)

Explain orthology Hooter.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#171433 Mar 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't accept or reject ID. There is simply no evidence for ID to reject. And yes, ERV's are an independent corroboration of common ancestry. This has long been demonstrated.
If not, then explain orthology. Without whining about mean old atheists.
Take your time, wussy.
You've got a problem Dude.

"Sir Gavin de Beer was one of the foremost embryologists of the 20th century. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and went on to become the Director of the Natural History Museum in London. In 1971 he wrote a paper which he titled, Homology: an Unsolved Problem.5 Now Gavin de Beer was an evolutionist, he believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution; but he couldn’t reconcile this with the facts of embryology. In his paper he gave examples of homologous structures that developed in very different ways, from different parts of the egg or embryo and under the control of different genes. It was a mystery to him because it flew in the face what he expected to find as an evolutionist; hence the title of his paper calling homology ‘an unsolved problem’. He never solved this problem—and nor has anyone else."

http://creation.com/homology-made-simple
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171434 Mar 21, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts are what I'm going on. You are just going on an ideology. The fact is that the two pillars of evolution are mutations and fossils and both of those fly in the face of your "facts".
If you believe that life evolved on this earth over billions of years, and there are now millions of species alive which are only supposed to represent a tiny fraction of what has gone extinct since LUCA, then there must have been millions upon millions of organisms that have lived an died, over and over again over all those billions of years. Yet, there isn't a single clear, unambiguous set of fossils, no clean series, showing the smooth transition from one type of organism to another. Not even a single one! Instead of having millions of them, you have none. Doesn't that grab your attention in the slightest? You have no evidence. What is in fact observed is the opposite of what you predict.
Similarly, we have millions of species living today. We have studied in detailed the most lab-suitable species with the fastest generation times. Given the relative fast generation times of those lab species, there is no evidence that a mutation can create new information of the type that would be required to change one type of species into another type. Not even the most minimal first step. In Lenski's long-term E. coli evolution experiment, he has recorded over 50,000 generations but still no whisper of a hint that this has occurred (please don't argue citrate). Mutations destroy, they do not create. So instead of seeing mutation create new organism-changing forward progression, new information-containing genetic mutations as common place and routing, you have none.
So in both pillars of evolutionary evidence, fossils and mutations, you have the polar opposite observations pointing you in the exact, 180 degree wrong direction. And then there are numerous other powerful evidences that point in the wrong direction against evolution. There is no bottom line because there isn't anything to compare. The theory of evolution has failed completely. All the facts point against evolution. Period.
Repeating your lies we refuted over and over only makes you look like a stupid liar.(shrug)

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171435 Mar 21, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Mutations destroy, they do not create. So instead of seeing mutations create new organism-changing, forward progression, new information-containing genetic mutations as commonplace and routine, you have none.
Biologists like Katy know what they're talking about. A HECK of a lot more than you.

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TG49GP...

And they say you're wrong.

Boom. You lose.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171436 Mar 21, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Every living organism is equipped with powerful, effective species change prevention controls. In fact, these built-in genetic controls to prevent change is part of what defines what it is to be alive and without them, the species would quickly go extinct. And it's not just genetic and cellular machinery. It's behavioral and environmental and muti-dimensional. It also often involves beneficial symbiotic relationships with plants and animals as well. The purpose of all this is to prevent the species from changing into some different type of species.
Great. So you're saying that evolution is not only possible but in fact the INEVITABLE outcome. Except that the invisible jewish wizard put in magic barriers to prevent it happening.

That's brilliant!

Duh.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171437 Mar 21, 2014
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got a problem Dude.
"Sir Gavin de Beer was one of the foremost embryologists of the 20th century. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and went on to become the Director of the Natural History Museum in London. In 1971 he wrote a paper which he titled, Homology: an Unsolved Problem.5 Now Gavin de Beer was an evolutionist, he believed in Darwin’s theory of evolution; but he couldn’t reconcile this with the facts of embryology. In his paper he gave examples of homologous structures that developed in very different ways, from different parts of the egg or embryo and under the control of different genes. It was a mystery to him because it flew in the face what he expected to find as an evolutionist; hence the title of his paper calling homology ‘an unsolved problem’. He never solved this problem—and nor has anyone else."
Except your buddies are liars for Jesus, just like you.(shrug)

So even if we take you at face value, an unsolved problem does not undercut the whole of biology.

Besides, you just debunked yourself. Sorry bub.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#171438 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you're so enamored with the evolution of ear ossicles, I did a google search and read what evidence was presented, trying to give evolution every benefit of the doubt. I was, frankly, stunned at how weak your argument is. There was no conceptual explanation as to how a functional jaw could have transmutated into an organ of hearing. All that was presented was morphological homology of jaw bones... And no actual photographs were shown...only embellished drawings.
If you can read this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitio...

listing a series of 16 species over millions of years showing unambiguous progression from reptile features to mammal features including the transformation of the middle ear, the attachment of the jaw, the development of tooth specialisation, the secondary palate, more mammalian femur and pelvis, gradual changes to the vertebrea and reduction on rib number, then cusped tooth development, tiny at first, gradual increase in number of tooth roots, eardrum developing first in the lower jaw along with the articular and the quadrate still attached to the jaw, gradually loosening. The development of the mammalian jaw attachment first alongside the old reptilian one and eventually replacing it completely fully freeing the two ossicles.

And towards the endo of the series

Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America)-- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.

Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina)-- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.

Anyone who can look at that evidence and not see a progression of characteristics is simply deluding themselves. The original text goes on for several pages detailing the gradual changes in much greater depth than I have done here, but my only alternative would have been to spam about 4-5 full length quotes in a row.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#171439 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are losing this debate badly, Chimney, and I am embarrassed for you.
Sure, dear Black Knight. If you think you are winning, it merely shows how clueless you are.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#171440 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
It is irrelevant how many millions of hours of meticulous field research has been conducted over the past 150 years. It is all founded on an a priori PHILOSOPHICAL rejection of Intelligent design. Therefore, it is not science.
More clueless piffle. It IS science to meticulously search for and collect fossil specimens, to date them and then to carefully catalogue their structures. It IS science to note that various mammalian characteristics emerge from early to late, and to note that in every case there are intermediate forms at the right times.

It is also science to explain that this fossil sequence supports the theory of evolution, providing exactly the series of small changes adding up to large changes cumulatively that the theory predicts.

It is YOU who is rejecting the evidence right in front of your face due to YOUR a priori conviction that evolution cannot be true. That ain't scepticism, its just dumb denialism.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#171441 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
As far as ape/human evolution...I've already debunked your Turkana boy, clearly demonstrating that all of the morphological changes seen in that skeleton could have easily been achieved through selective breeding. Notice that the axial skeleton is 100% human. This is because the axial skeleton does not exhibit nearly as much variation as the skull. If you could show a great toe evolving into an opposable digit, and a more ape-like axial skeleton, you would have an argument. At this point, you have nothing. Humans are known to exhibit significant morphological variability. You have no evidence that mutations can result in enhanced intelligence, transmutation from quadruped to upright, etc.
Don't kid yourself. Turkana was typical for specimens of his time found all over Africa and Asia. There are NO modern humans. The measurable differences are intermediate between ape and human. The change to the toe and most of the skeletal structure are seen EARLIER in Australopiths, meaning that the fully upright posture evolved before the dramatic increases in the brain case.

Your "debunking" consisted of little more than showing a picture of a slopeheaded Russian boxer, whilst ignoring the fact that the slope of the forehead is just ONE way that Erectus differed.

Most laughable of all, you want to suggest that the features of Erectus could evolve from a modern human, while denying that the same argument can go the other way. Yet what we see in the fossil record is ONLY the Erectus type a million years ago, and only our type now, so that obviously if it could have gone either way, it went from them to us....

and finally, you IGNORE the fact that there is an even earlier fossil very similar to Erectus but even more primitive, and early, called Georgicus, and there are extensive fossils AFTER Erectus emergess that are midway between Erectus and ourselves.

In other words, a very clear cut series of transitions is DENIED by you ONLY on the basis of your a priori insistence that evolution could not have happened.

The evidence says otherwise.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#171442 Mar 21, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not provided any scientific evidence that the 3-boned middle ear of mammals evolved from the jaw of a reptile. You have only made broad statements.
And your statements that the "pattern of variation in pseudogenes, ubiquitous proteins, and ERVs is slam dunk independent corroboration of the fossil record. " That's nothing but a transparent smokescreen. In the first place, you are ignoring that the junk DNA paradigm has been proven to be false. Secondly, how can genetic evidence "independently corroborate" the fossil record? You cannot analyze the DNA of a fossil species.
It is irrelevant how many millions of hours of meticulous field research has been conducted over the past 150 years. It is all founded on an a priori PHILOSOPHICAL rejection of Intelligent design. Therefore, it is not science.
No matter how many times you prattle that the junk paradigm has been falsified, you are still factually wrong about that.

"Birney was right about the scepticism. Gregory says,“80 percent is the figure only if your definition is so loose as to be all but meaningless.” Larry Moran from the University of Toronto adds,“Functional" simply means a little bit of DNA that's been identified in an assay of some sort or another. That’s a remarkably silly definition of function and if you're using it to discount junk DNA it's downright disingenuous.”

This is the main criticism of ENCODE thus far, repeated across many blogs and touched on in the opening section of this post. There are other concerns. For example, White notes that many DNA-binding proteins recognise short sequences that crop up all over the genome just by chance. The upshot is that you’d expect many of the elements that ENCODE identified if you just wrote out a random string of As, Gs, Cs, and Ts.“I've spent the summer testing a lot of random DNA,” he tweeted.“It’s not hard to make it do something biochemically interesting.”

Gregory asks why, if ENCODE is right and our genome is full of functional elements, does an onion have around five times as much non-coding DNA as we do? Or why pufferfishes can get by with just a tenth as much?"

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
----------

NOTE the part where he says that playing with RANDOM DNA SEQUENCES, he could make them do something biochemically interesting.

----------
As usual, thanks to your a priori rejection of evolution, you jumped like all the other Creatard Sheep onto the ENCODE statement that 80% does "something". Elsewhere I read that most of the something is useless repetitive RNA transcription and the results are just taken apart again in a useless cycle. Only about 9% is accounted for as useful function and the upper estimate is 20%. Also stated by an ENCODE researcher. and even aside from all that, there is still that 20% apparently doing nothing at all.

But more to the point, so what? The pattern of variation in pseudogenes, ubiquitous proteins, and ERVs is slam dunk independent corroboration of the fossil record whether you want to believe some DNA is Junk or not. Junk is just a label, and the relevent question is whether the sequence is subject to SELECTION. Clearly the bits that just recycle pointless RNA sequences are not. No selection = good molecular clock.

But even WITH selection, there is still no other way of explaining the PATTERN of variation, which follows the SAME nested hierarchy of change as the fossil record.

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) 4 min Into The Night 51,336
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 9 min marksman11 157,326
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 37 min Regolith Based Li... 24,639
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 41 min Regolith Based Li... 218,714
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr ChromiuMan 1,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 7 hr Dogen 460
How did reproduction start for any living thing? 7 hr Dogen 90
More from around the web