Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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

#173627 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA homology is a debunked argument...a true embarrassment to evolutionary theory. You have not proven relatedness... You've only imagined it...and all of your predictions to validate that hunch have FAILED.

False.

Open book, open internet, open libraries, and you still get the answer wrong.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#173628 Apr 25, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't "know" that ERV's are viruses. We know that they are HOMOLOGOUS with viruses.
What the researchers did in the article you posted is take dozens of known viral sequences and aligned them to create a so-called "consensus" sequence. Then they converted this information into a complete viral genome. In other words, they took a segment of DNA that was very closely homologous to a virus, and genetically engineered a virus from it. That doesn't prove that the sequence was inserted by an ancient virus. No one is denying that ERV segments are homologous with viruses. All life forms have substantial homology in their DNA. Humans and bananas share 50-60% concordance of nucleotide sequences. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. You presume common descent, because you presume that God doesn't exist, or that if he did exist he wouldn't program life the way it is.
Wrong again How's That for Stupid.

The researchers took sequences from viruses from several different sources. They knew that the ERV would have mutated along with its hosts. By taking samples from several different sources they were able to eliminate mutations by using the logical step of the consensus of the sequences to get the original virus. The virus created was viable.

So either man made a virus that lives from nonviral material, in other words man created life, or the much more likely outcome is that we merely recreated the original virus.

I see that you have not gotten any smarter during my absence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173629 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You are assuming that evolutiondidit BECAUSE you think that it LOOKS LIKE a broken gene.
Wrong.
You are stating that DNA is sub-optimally engineered. You ASSUME that an intelligent designer would be perfect. That is a RELIGIOUS assumption.
No, I do not make such an assumption.

Here's a question. Suppose there is a 'creator'. How does knowing such affect the analysis of *any* of the data? The ages of things dated with radioactive decay would be the same. The changes in species as shown in the fossil record would be the same. The DNA evidence would be the same. The red shifts of galaxies would be the same, the background radiation would be the same, the abundances of light elements would be the same, etc, etc, etc.

How would the interpretation of *any* of this change in any way? We would still apply Ockham's razor to find the simplest description based on the data. We would still be wanting to know specific mechanisms. We would still be asking the same questions.

For example, suppose we want to know the chemical reactions that take place in making beer. In no way is the fact that there is an intelligence directing the making of the beer going to affect our chemical analysis. In no way will it affect the way we interpret the results. In no way will it make one iota of difference in the science done or the conclusions made.

The point is that the *only* conclusion you care about is the existence of a deity. As long as people pay lip service to that one concept, you are happy to accept any conclusions. Well, you also don't like the idea that we can understand what happened millions of years ago based on the evidence we find today and that you might be related to other animals. I guess it hurts your ego.
HTS

Williston, ND

#173630 Apr 26, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
<quoted text>
No, I do not make such an assumption.
Here's a question. Suppose there is a 'creator'. How does knowing such affect the analysis of *any* of the data? The ages of things dated with radioactive decay would be the same. The changes in species as shown in the fossil record would be the same. The DNA evidence would be the same. The red shifts of galaxies would be the same, the background radiation would be the same, the abundances of light elements would be the same, etc, etc, etc.
How would the interpretation of *any* of this change in any way? We would still apply Ockham's razor to find the simplest description based on the data. We would still be wanting to know specific mechanisms. We would still be asking the same questions.
For example, suppose we want to know the chemical reactions that take place in making beer. In no way is the fact that there is an intelligence directing the making of the beer going to affect our chemical analysis. In no way will it affect the way we interpret the results. In no way will it make one iota of difference in the science done or the conclusions made.
The point is that the *only* conclusion you care about is the existence of a deity. As long as people pay lip service to that one concept, you are happy to accept any conclusions. Well, you also don't like the idea that we can understand what happened millions of years ago based on the evidence we find today and that you might be related to other animals. I guess it hurts your ego.
The simplest explanation of the facts is not naturalism.
You cannot explain how inorganic matter can evolve into life. All you can do is advance special pleading arguments coupled with a hope that, given millions of years, somehow all of the great improbabilities of such a process will be overcome. You cannot reference any laws of science to back up your faith. Science tells us that unorganized matter, left to itself, remains unorganized. You have a PhD in math, correct? Can you give me a mathematical justification for abiogenesis?

The only reason that you perceive evolution as the "simplest" explanation is because you have philosophically excluded a higher intelligence. It's that simple. A higher intelligence contradicts your religion.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173631 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The simplest explanation of the facts is not naturalism.
You cannot explain how inorganic matter can evolve into life. All you can do is advance special pleading arguments coupled with a hope that, given millions of years, somehow all of the great improbabilities of such a process will be overcome. You cannot reference any laws of science to back up your faith. Science tells us that unorganized matter, left to itself, remains unorganized. You have a PhD in math, correct? Can you give me a mathematical justification for abiogenesis?
The only reason that you perceive evolution as the "simplest" explanation is because you have philosophically excluded a higher intelligence. It's that simple. A higher intelligence contradicts your religion.
I notice that you didn't answer the question: how does the existence of a creator change the way the data is interpreted? Does it change any of the ages? Change any of the red-shifts? Change the nature of the background radiation?

For that matter, how is adding the assumption of an intelligence making things any simpler? Does it elucidate the mechanisms at all? other than sweeping any problems under the rug, what exactly does the assumption of a creator help to explain *in detail*?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173632 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
The simplest explanation of the facts is not naturalism.
Science is naturalistic to the core. There is no such thing as "non-natural science".

That's why we don't take your claims seriously in a scientific context.
HTS wrote:
You cannot explain how inorganic matter can evolve into life. All you can do is advance special pleading arguments coupled with a hope that, given millions of years, somehow all of the great improbabilities of such a process will be overcome. You cannot reference any laws of science to back up your faith. Science tells us that unorganized matter, left to itself, remains unorganized. You have a PhD in math, correct? Can you give me a mathematical justification for abiogenesis?
The theory of evolution doesn't rely on abiogenesis.

Plus you fail to take into account that the improbabilities of such an event are DRASTICALLY reduced when one takes the entire frakking universe into account.

Also keep in mind that since not enough is currently known about all the variables for abiogenesis, one cannot assign accurate numbers. This uh, means you're talking bollox every time you claim that abio is "mathematically impossible".
HTS wrote:
The only reason that you perceive evolution as the "simplest" explanation is because you have philosophically excluded a higher intelligence. It's that simple. A higher intelligence contradicts your religion.
There is zero evidence for such a thing therefore we do not need to consider it. Besides, if we did, we'd only be arguing RELIGION, right? Duh.

Explain orthology Hoots.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173633 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire junk DNA paradigm is framed around the concept of an "imperfect" genetic code.
Here is what Jerry Coyne said a few years ago...
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
Coyne is basing his argument on PERFECTION vs IMPERFECTION.
That is religion. You cannot logically argue that a God would only create perfection...unless you introduce religion into your arguments.
He's debunking ID, and showing that evolution made a successful prediction that you can't refute.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173634 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA homology is a debunked argument...a true embarrassment to evolutionary theory. You have not proven relatedness... You've only imagined it...and all of your predictions to validate that hunch have FAILED.
Really? Because yesterday you said ERV's were showing homology, not common ancestry. And I pointed out that you've been claiming (without evidence to back yourself up) that "homology was a refuted argument!"

Just goes to show that you're using all these big words without even understanding what any of them mean.

But if they HAD failed, you'd be able to explain orthology for us.

(sound of crickets chirping)
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#173635 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
You're waving a red cape in front of children, anything that you say you are not, they are going to push that three and four times as hard. These so-called evolutionist children, are not here for science.
Ah shaddap Jimbo

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173636 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
Science tells us that unorganized matter, left to itself, remains unorganized.
This is wrong. In the presence of, say, gravity, it *will* self organize, heat up, and produce complexity.
You have a PhD in math, correct? Can you give me a mathematical justification for abiogenesis?
Way, way, way too vague of a question. The typical creationist probability calculations are clearly wrong. They assume probabilistic independence where it is known that such is not the case (it seldom is in fluids). To do a real calculation, the mechanisms would have to be known, which is exactly the problem we are attempting to solve.
The only reason that you perceive evolution as the "simplest" explanation is because you have philosophically excluded a higher intelligence. It's that simple. A higher intelligence contradicts your religion.
Not at all. I would be fine with there being a 'higher' intelligence, but I see no evidence of such. What we do know is that evolution explains biology well and the Big Bang scenario explains the broad outlines of cosmology well. Are there details in both yet to be explained? Of course! Is it possible that some of our ideas will have to be modified when new data becomes available? Of course! That is how science works. But the facts will remain that species have changed over geological time and that the universe is expanding and was once much hotter and denser. Even the addition of an intelligence won't change those basic facts. At most, such an assumption will modify a few relatively minor issues, but certainly not the core ideas.

So, once again, how does the assumption of an intelligent creator affect the analysis of the cosmic background radiation? How does it change the evaluation and interpretation of the red-shifts of galaxies? How does it change the fact that fossils dated to different eras have different species, with eras close in time having species that are more similar?

The simple answer is that the added assumption will change *nothing* about these conclusions.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173637 Apr 26, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is wrong. In the presence of, say, gravity, it *will* self organize, heat up, and produce complexity.
<quoted text>
Way, way, way too vague of a question. The typical creationist probability calculations are clearly wrong. They assume probabilistic independence where it is known that such is not the case (it seldom is in fluids). To do a real calculation, the mechanisms would have to be known, which is exactly the problem we are attempting to solve.
<quoted text>
Not at all. I would be fine with there being a 'higher' intelligence, but I see no evidence of such. What we do know is that evolution explains biology well and the Big Bang scenario explains the broad outlines of cosmology well. Are there details in both yet to be explained? Of course! Is it possible that some of our ideas will have to be modified when new data becomes available? Of course! That is how science works. But the facts will remain that species have changed over geological time and that the universe is expanding and was once much hotter and denser. Even the addition of an intelligence won't change those basic facts. At most, such an assumption will modify a few relatively minor issues, but certainly not the core ideas.
So, once again, how does the assumption of an intelligent creator affect the analysis of the cosmic background radiation? How does it change the evaluation and interpretation of the red-shifts of galaxies? How does it change the fact that fossils dated to different eras have different species, with eras close in time having species that are more similar?
The simple answer is that the added assumption will change *nothing* about these conclusions.
You say,This is wrong. In the presence of, say, gravity, it *will* self organize, heat up, and produce complexity.

Copy and paste in what ways, because you don't have a thinking brain, to be able to explain it all by yourself.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173638 Apr 26, 2014
If you have something other than copy and paste poly, show us the self organization in a way that science has never done.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173639 Apr 26, 2014
Yes Paulie I can name one way that science has not.

Will I? That depends on your answer.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#173641 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Yes Paulie I can name one way that science has not.
Will I? That depends on your answer.

People are trying to have an intelligent conversation here and then you chime in with more of your brainless nonsense.

Can't you find something better to do, like playing in traffic, for example.

Mugwump

Retford, UK

#173642 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Yes Paulie I can name one way that science has not.
Will I? That depends on your answer.
Jim, no one really cares about your posts, as they don't add anything to the discussion.

Doesn't mean people don't care.

How are you doing ?
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#173643 Apr 26, 2014
Now now children, do try to speak to the subject. I know it's not something you normally do, because you don't have the wherewithal.
Mugwump

Retford, UK

#173644 Apr 26, 2014
One way or another wrote:
Now now children, do try to speak to the subject. I know it's not something you normally do, because you don't have the wherewithal.
Ok, why don't YOU try to address the current conversation ?

Do you agree or disagree with polymath's post regarding organaisation , if you don't , explain why not in an intelligent manner.

You know, like a grown up

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#173645 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The entire junk DNA paradigm is framed around the concept of an "imperfect" genetic code.
Here is what Jerry Coyne said a few years ago...
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
Coyne is basing his argument on PERFECTION vs IMPERFECTION.
That is religion. You cannot logically argue that a God would only create perfection...unless you introduce religion into your arguments.
Coyne would not even frame the discussion in terms of perfection and imperfection if he was not countering the claims of creationists.

He would just say, "yep, we find there are pseudogenes and its no surprise".

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#173646 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA homology is a debunked argument...a true embarrassment to evolutionary theory. You have not proven relatedness... You've only imagined it...and all of your predictions to validate that hunch have FAILED.
Except that homology is not a debunked argument, just because you say it is.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#173647 Apr 26, 2014
HTS wrote:
Science tells us that unorganized matter, left to itself, remains unorganized.
Well, right there is one of your core mistakes. Science tells us that in many natural situations, quite the opposite is true, and I am not even counting biological processes. But until you understand your error here, you are never going to open your eyes to how evolution or many other natural processes work. Natural self-organisation is a feature of many dynamic systems.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min replaytime 172,022
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Gary Coaldigger 20,691
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 142,761
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 10 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program 11 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 13 hr Chimney1 304
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... 16 hr Dopy 1
More from around the web