Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#95403 Jun 28, 2012
Libertatem wrote:
<quoted text>
Insulting my children just shows your age. It is illegal to send them to a trade school at that age.
Geez, your touchy. Not your genetic kids, poetic liscense kids. Now you'll get all bummed out if I call them generic kids. I would think you would like your own kids (generic kids) to aspire to something beyond mediocrity.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#95404 Jun 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I have newfound respect for you.
Still think you're going to beat me out on that Biology exam, don't you?

Since: Aug 07

United States

#95405 Jun 28, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Still think you're going to beat me out on that Biology exam, don't you?
If we both pass, I wouldn't mind if you got the higher score. But I got to tell you, I'm very experienced at test taking and studying. Every year I have to complete and report the required number of hours of continuous professional education (CPE) to maintain my certificates and licenses. And I've been doing that for more than 25 years. As I scan through my biology text (Biology, Campbell, 8th ed.) and review course (REA), there is very little that I haven't aleady been exposed to from my previous studies related to creation science. Together with the testware software, and CLEP official guide, I've got 5 full length practice exams. I'll just memorize the questions and answers. That's 575 questions with explanations! I've also read dozens of books on these subjects already and I know you probably have as well. You mentioned that you watched all of the free online UC Berkeley lectures and took notes. Who knows, one of us could get the highest score ever recorded? You should at least do better at the questions on evolution. I would like to take it around August or September. That'll give me time to take the chemistry exam prior to the start of the spring semester. I'm looking forward to seeing some hot Miami latina coed talent up close in the lab; that alone will be worth the cost of tuition.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#95406 Jun 28, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If we both pass, I wouldn't mind if you got the higher score. But I got to tell you, I'm very experienced at test taking and studying. Every year I have to complete and report the required number of hours of continuous professional education (CPE) to maintain my certificates and licenses. And I've been doing that for more than 25 years. As I scan through my biology text (Biology, Campbell, 8th ed.) and review course (REA), there is very little that I haven't aleady been exposed to from my previous studies related to creation science. Together with the testware software, and CLEP official guide, I've got 5 full length practice exams. I'll just memorize the questions and answers. That's 575 questions with explanations! I've also read dozens of books on these subjects already and I know you probably have as well. You mentioned that you watched all of the free online UC Berkeley lectures and took notes. Who knows, one of us could get the highest score ever recorded? You should at least do better at the questions on evolution. I would like to take it around August or September. That'll give me time to take the chemistry exam prior to the start of the spring semester. I'm looking forward to seeing some hot Miami latina coed talent up close in the lab; that alone will be worth the cost of tuition.
How close? I'll be spending tomorrow with a sizzlin hot Latina. Damn, the way she moves her body would drive a sober man to drink and and a wise man crazy.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#95407 Jun 28, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Libertatem,let me ask you a question.
Are you a Southerner who uses school vouchers to send your children to religiously orientated schools that teach creationism and not evolution? Or are you one who just supports this practice?
Because if you are...you are part of the dumbing down of Americas children.
"Is our children learning?" as George W. Bush so famously asked. Well, no, they is not learning. America is not teaching its children stuff they need to know, and we are falling into the Republican elites trap.
The only "trap" is your mouth and it's full of crap.

"Homeschoolers score higher than 86% of their public school peers, according to a new study called Progress Report 2009: Homeschool Academic Achievement and Demographics.

This 86th percentile is a composite score in Reading, Language, Math, Social Studies and Science.

It is based on test results of 11,739 homeschooled students from all 50 states. Tests used included the 2007-8 California Achievement Test, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, and Stanford Achievement Test.

It has also been found that homeschoolers are successful in college."

http://www.examiner.com/article/homeschoolers...

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95408 Jun 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's always the game you play Chimney. Getting you to focus and hold still in one place is like trying to wrestle a greased pig.
No, both skipping away when the going gets tough and attributing your own behaviors to others is YOUR game.

Many times I have wanted to pursue a subject to its logical conclusion and you ran away.
Massive mud flows happen all the time and miraculously the earth has not been vaporized.
Irrelevant and inaccurate. "Mud flows" are not the same thing as massive volcanic lava flows and you know it. The Deccan traps are one such flow, covering over 500,000 km squared. Another larger one in Siberia...and other places. If all these happened in the space of a year or decades, life would be extinguished. Scientists know this, while you prattle about "mud flows". In fact the flows I referred to are associated with mass extinctions, including the worst one on record at the end of the Permian. Even in this case, the event occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, and was still toxic enough to nearly destroy higher life-forms. In one year? You gotta be kidding! hahaha!
Massive track evidence in the rocks of accelerated decay and miraculously the earth was not vaporized.
There is absolutely no evidence of accelerated radioactive decay in any science. You are dreaming. There was some controversial evidence of a tiny increase in the rate in some conditions, such as a percentage or two...possibly. Nothing like 700,000 TIMES.
Water has an extremely high heat capacity that can easily dissipate any residual heat from cementing or accelerated decay.
Scientists fully understand water's heat capacity and they also know that the deposition of all the limestone deposits in a few days or weeks would exceed it. As would accelerated decay. Just plug in your own kettle to observed the finite limits of water's heat capacity.
Now look at the science I presented and realize that shale can form rapidly from fast moving water and mud. The old theory has been satisfactorily challenged by both creation and secular circles.
I still need to check that.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95409 Jun 29, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
And, Urb, keep in mind that your story requires the marsupial shrew to split into kangaroos (ALL species of kangaroos) as well as koalas (ALL species of koalas) and all other Australian marsupials within the space of about 4000 years. Hell, we've been messing with dogs for 2500 years and haven't pulled off that kind of feat. You're telling us that in 4000 years, a marsupial shrew managed to evolve into all the different marsupial species that exist on Australia? You do realize that the sheer volume of mutations required per generation would result in complete failure to produce viable offspring, yes?
Oh well, the truth emerges through the back door.

Once Urb admits that all marsupials might have had a common ancestor, he might as well admit that "adaptation" and "evolution" are exactly the same thing.

After all, if you can get a koala, a wombat, and a grey kangaroo from one ancestor, surely you can even more easily get a man, a chimp, and a rhesus monkey from a common proto-monkey.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#95410 Jun 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems the old idea that fine grains remain suspended in water and take a long time to settle in still waters is no longer the only explanation. Here's a couple of articles with secular references.
http://creation.com/mud-experiments-overturn-...
http://creation.com/geologist-steve-austin
I'm curious whether Dr. Steve Austin ever completed the much larger race track flume shale making machine. Sorry if you feel I am ignoring you but I'm studying biology now so need to focus on that. Geology was never that interesting to me anyway.(Not yet anyway!)
I have now read your articles and all I can say is - not even close.

The fact that some shale forming particles can deposit in moving waters is NOT evidence that hundreds of feet of shale deposits (with alternating bands of sandstone between them) could form in days.

Austin's article does not deal with that either. He claims sudden changes from laminar to turbulent flow could result in a massive dumping of carried mud but there is no experimental support given. Its just an idea. And even if true, it has to be demonstrated that this would occur on the scale required. He wants to build a model, so let him go ahead and do it. Until then its just a typical creationist speculation.

In the case of deposition of biological materials like chalk and limestones, you also have to account for where all this material came from. The sheer volume of coccolith based carbonate deposits are far more than could have even co-existed in any oceans. No, this is not changing the subject. We are looking at 15,000+ feet of highly structured deposits of many different kinds that you say could all have been created in a single flood event. I am telling you the reasons why that is impossible.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95411 Jun 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dude, have you had any college biology?
Nope.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95412 Jun 29, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I wasn't sure either - was waiting for some nonsense about how the universe is powered by a central gyroscope or something
Ah, now that to me sounds more like Mikey and his SCPID BS.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#95413 Jun 29, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh well, the truth emerges through the back door.
Once Urb admits that all marsupials might have had a common ancestor, he might as well admit that "adaptation" and "evolution" are exactly the same thing.
After all, if you can get a koala, a wombat, and a grey kangaroo from one ancestor, surely you can even more easily get a man, a chimp, and a rhesus monkey from a common proto-monkey.
Except it requires mutation rates comparable to that of cancer.

Mind you I told him this years ago. He says evolution is wrong but evolution is real and all life dies therefore God fixes it all with magic.

Since: Aug 07

Lexington, SC

#95414 Jun 29, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
I have now read your articles and all I can say is - not even close.
The fact that some shale forming particles can deposit in moving waters is NOT evidence that hundreds of feet of shale deposits (with alternating bands of sandstone between them) could form in days.
Austin's article does not deal with that either. He claims sudden changes from laminar to turbulent flow could result in a massive dumping of carried mud but there is no experimental support given.
Of course there is. It's already been done. He just wants to perform the same experiment on a larger scale. Look at the secular references. This is exactly that - it forms quickly. And you have another problem. How could the tops of lower layers be smooth with no erosion and no evidence of anything being on it ever? Seems impossible under your scenario but under my scenario that's what you'd expect to see.

Since: Aug 07

Lexington, SC

#95415 Jun 29, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
SO why don't you join us! We're all going to take the CLEP biology exam together. What do you say Dude?

Since: Aug 07

Lexington, SC

#95416 Jun 29, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except it requires mutation rates comparable to that of cancer.
Mind you I told him this years ago. He says evolution is wrong but evolution is real and all life dies therefore God fixes it all with magic.
I have no problem called adaptation evolution. The word evolution is a great word that can be used in many contexts. But as a YEC, of course I don't believe that there was any common ancestry except that from within each created kind. I'd be shocked if any creation sceintist believed that kangeroos were of the same kind as koalas. As far as I can tell from all the evidence, koalas have always been koalas. They have so many unique features that it would be a great stretch to imagine them ever being anything else.

Since: Aug 07

Lexington, SC

#95417 Jun 29, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
Scientists fully understand water's heat capacity and they also know that the deposition of all the limestone deposits in a few days or weeks would exceed it. As would accelerated decay. Just plug in your own kettle to observed the finite limits of water's heat capacity.
More like a year. But anyway, these limestone deposits are very, very small compared to a water world that would easily absord the paltry release of energy from a few miles of deposit over a few years time. Maybe it took 25 years to fully harden, who knows? But if you added up all the surface water, water vapor in the air, and subterannian water, the limestone deposits we know about are insignificant, especially if allowed to harden over a long period of time.

Also, a kettle is *designed* to boil water and is made to be highly efficient in absorbing heat and trapping it inside. Your examples are highly, highly biased. Always are.

Since: Aug 07

Lexington, SC

#95418 Jun 29, 2012
Nobody answered this question, so I'm posting it again.

Which of the following represents a plausible progression in the evolution of plants?

a. autotrophic eukaryotic cells aerobic prokaryotic cells photosynthetic cells multicellular plants

b. heterotrophic eukaryotic cells anaerobic prokaryotic cells autotrophic cyanobacteria multicellular plants

c. aerobic eukaryotic cells anaerobic eukaryotic cells photosynthetic cells multicellular plants

d. anaerobic prokaryotic cells aerobic prokaryotic cells anaerobic eukaryotic cells multicellular plants

e. anaerobic prokaryotic cells autotrophic cyanobacteria aerobic eukaryotic cells multicellular plants

Since: Aug 07

United States

#95419 Jun 29, 2012
I see a pattern here: Spam, Dimbulb, nuts. Repeated on all my posts. Will the coward identify him/her self? My bet is that it's out of frustration of not understanding what is going on and simple lowbrow bigotry.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#95420 Jun 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Nobody answered this question, so I'm posting it again.
Which of the following represents a plausible progression in the evolution of plants?
a. autotrophic eukaryotic cells aerobic prokaryotic cells photosynthetic cells multicellular plants
b. heterotrophic eukaryotic cells anaerobic prokaryotic cells autotrophic cyanobacteria multicellular plants
c. aerobic eukaryotic cells anaerobic eukaryotic cells photosynthetic cells multicellular plants
d. anaerobic prokaryotic cells aerobic prokaryotic cells anaerobic eukaryotic cells multicellular plants
e. anaerobic prokaryotic cells autotrophic cyanobacteria aerobic eukaryotic cells multicellular plants
E is the best of the bunch.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#95421 Jun 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Nobody answered this question, so I'm posting it again.
Which of the following represents a plausible progression in the evolution of plants?
a. autotrophic eukaryotic cells aerobic prokaryotic cells photosynthetic cells multicellular plants
b. heterotrophic eukaryotic cells anaerobic prokaryotic cells autotrophic cyanobacteria multicellular plants
c. aerobic eukaryotic cells anaerobic eukaryotic cells photosynthetic cells multicellular plants
d. anaerobic prokaryotic cells aerobic prokaryotic cells anaerobic eukaryotic cells multicellular plants
e. anaerobic prokaryotic cells autotrophic cyanobacteria aerobic eukaryotic cells multicellular plants
e.

Anaerobic cells don't use oxygen and so existed in the pre oxygenated world.
Prokaryotic cells lack a membrane around a nucleus (ie bacteria).
Autotrophic cells produce their food using light or chemical reactions.
Cyanobacteria split CO2 into carbon which is used and oxygen which is discarded as a waste product.
Aerobic cells use oxygen for chemical reactions.
Eukaryote cells have a nucleus membrane and mitochondria and form the basis of all multicellular life (we all begin as a single Eukaryote cell in our mothers womb.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#95422 Jun 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Dogen, ever had a course in biology or chemistry? Geology? Astronomy?

Yes (several and am taking a graduate level neurobiology class in the fall)
Yes
Yes
and No. I did, however pass the AP test for Astronomy with the highest score the examiner ever remembered seeing.

I have also taken classes in college level physics, calculus, anthropology, botany etc.

Why, what is the issue?

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.

Science / Technology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min DanFromSmithville 40,293
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 18 min Trumping On 25
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 23 min Osmius 10,582
Complete Guide to Remove DRM from iBooks 3 hr salarri 2
News Lots of Wheat But Not Enough Protein Sends Buye... 6 hr Agent Orange - Co... 3
News How robot, explosives took out Dallas sniper 9 hr Bangal 7
News Kickass Torrents' huge file sharing site shut d... 16 hr filip3ff 1
More from around the web