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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#95726 Jul 9, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really? Then please tell me where else the kolas are indigenous besides eastern and southern Australia. I await your nonsensical reply.
Asia, of course, but the fur traders rounded up EVERY SINGLE KOALA ON THE ENTIRE CONTINENT, along with every bit of evidence of their existence anywhere other than Australia, and dropped them off Down Under. That's the REASONABLE and MOST LIKELY explanation.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#95727 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And quite a complete explanation I might add. From creation to the Ark to Australia. No problem. Koalas have always been Koalas. They were intelligently designed and created from the beginning. You, on the other hand, are at a complete loss as to the Koala's evolution. Isn't that right?
If you ignore all the evidence we have for the rabbits on Australia, and the complete lack of evidence supporting your story, they're the same situation.

Remind us...how did "fur traders" come to be the most reasonable and likely explanation for koalas appearing only on Australia?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#95728 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong.
Do rabbits ONLY exist on Australia? If not, then it's NOT the exact same situation.
Mugwump

UK

#95729 Jul 9, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Asia, of course, but the fur traders rounded up EVERY SINGLE KOALA ON THE ENTIRE CONTINENT, along with every bit of evidence of their existence anywhere other than Australia, and dropped them off Down Under. That's the REASONABLE and MOST LIKELY explanation.
Of course this is a difference between real science and the bastardisation that is YEC - the former can legitimately say 'we don't know the exact detail as yet' e.g. Abiogenesis, but as YEC sees this as a weakness in the explaintory framework of ToE it is forced to 'make shit up' however implausiaable to justify its own nonsense

Since: Aug 07

United States

#95730 Jul 9, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
1: You didn't just say it was a possibility; you said it was the MOST LIKELY EXPLANATION.
2: We KNOW rabbits were brought to Australia, but we also know that all the rabbits everywhere in the world weren't rounded up and deposited on Australia, with the evidence of rabbits existing anywhere other than Australia being systematically eliminated. Your story requires the latter. Rabbits on Australia doesn't.
3: You posit explanations, and once the absurdity of the explanations is impossible to deny, you claim it isn't significant. It sure seemed significant when you decided one of them was the most likely. I didn't know we determined the likelihood of things that are insignificant. By the way, how DID you determine that "fur traders" was the most reasonable/likely explanation for why koalas are only found on Australia? When you make shit up, we're not just going to pretend you didn't, or pretend it doesn't matter. It matters. People who make shit up are known as liars. If you're doing something other than making shit up, then demonstrate it. Show us your evidence. Show us your reasoning. Show us your work. Or, you can just admit that you were making shit up and that you're a liar.
I also said I don't know how they got there. But I gave you several possibilities. Then you tried to claim Koalas are immobile and I showed video of them running, swimming across rivers, attacking people, etc. Then you said coming over by ship is ridiculous and I showed you another species that did just that.

And so what? Even if you are unwilling to accept any of my possible explanations, that doesn't prove anything. You're in a much worse situation regarding evolution as there isn't any ideas out there how they could have possibly evolved. So I have a minor gap that can easily be filled with several reasonable suggestions of how Koalas immigrated to Australia; while you, on the other hand, are at a complete loss with regards to their evolution. You certainly aren't hurting my position and you certainly aren't helping yours any either.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#95731 Jul 9, 2012
Oh and by the way, the origin of life and abiogenesis IS a part of evolution. You guys have been lying all along about that. I happen to know this because I am studying for a biology test and have the No. 1 college biology text and a review book. Bunch a fibbers.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#95732 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I also said I don't know how they got there. But I gave you several possibilities. Then you tried to claim Koalas are immobile and I showed video of them running, swimming across rivers, attacking people, etc. Then you said coming over by ship is ridiculous and I showed you another species that did just that.
And so what? Even if you are unwilling to accept any of my possible explanations, that doesn't prove anything. You're in a much worse situation regarding evolution as there isn't any ideas out there how they could have possibly evolved. So I have a minor gap that can easily be filled with several reasonable suggestions of how Koalas immigrated to Australia; while you, on the other hand, are at a complete loss with regards to their evolution. You certainly aren't hurting my position and you certainly aren't helping yours any either.
Wow. You are so incredibly full of shit.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#95733 Jul 9, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Asia, of course, but the fur traders rounded up EVERY SINGLE KOALA ON THE ENTIRE CONTINENT, along with every bit of evidence of their existence anywhere other than Australia, and dropped them off Down Under. That's the REASONABLE and MOST LIKELY explanation.
Further complicated by the fact that all the fur traders in the world had recently drowned. So Mrs Noah must have been shooting out new fur traders like a fire hydrant.

God works in mysterious ways.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#95734 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Oh and by the way, the origin of life and abiogenesis IS a part of evolution.
Only in the broadest, non-technical sense.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
You guys have been lying all along about that. I happen to know this because I am studying for a biology test and have the No. 1 college biology text and a review book. Bunch a fibbers.
Abiogenesis is still chemistry and evolution is still biology.
Mugwump

UK

#95735 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Oh and by the way, the origin of life and abiogenesis IS a part of evolution. You guys have been lying all along about that. I happen to know this because I am studying for a biology test and have the No. 1 college biology text and a review book. Bunch a fibbers.
And I presume the origin of the universe is part of gravitational theory?

Since: Aug 07

United States

#95736 Jul 9, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. You are so incredibly full of shit.
I see you refuse to grow up.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#95737 Jul 9, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Only in the broadest, non-technical sense.
<quoted text>
Abiogenesis is still chemistry and evolution is still biology.
And the fact that it is covered in biology class and there is a section in the chapter on evolution in a standard biology text which is used in a 1st and 2nd semester college biology and there are test questions on it doesn't matter right? Seems like Everything you people claim always turns out false.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#95738 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you refuse to grow up.
Very insightful response, Urb.

And why should I when grown men like yourself believe in fairy tales? Not much of a role model, are you?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#95739 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And the fact that it is covered in biology class and there is a section in the chapter on evolution in a standard biology text which is used in a 1st and 2nd semester college biology and there are test questions on it doesn't matter right? Seems like Everything you people claim always turns out false.
So a biology text book has a SECTION in a CHAPTER mentioning the origins of life. You'll excuse me if I'm not overly shocked.

Since: Aug 07

United States

#95740 Jul 9, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So a biology text book has a SECTION in a CHAPTER mentioning the origins of life. You'll excuse me if I'm not overly shocked.
And there are test questions on it.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#95741 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And there are test questions on it.
But specifically - does the text book say or imply that the validity of the theory of evolution is dependent on abiogenisis ?

It's very simple, life started somehow, could have been a theistic creation event, but EVOLUTION deals with how that life diversifies after that initial event.

Creationists are on dodgy ground if they insist the mechasism for origins of life must be proved outright for ToE to stand up as if they use that argument they have to throw out

ALL physics (as cant prove mechasism for origins of universe)
ALL chemistry (as based on physics, at least at the atomic level)
ALL science (see above)
ALL creation science (as cant prove mechasism of 'god')

It's just one of the many inconsistancies in YEC arguments - unless you want to throw out YEC as a valid science UC?- you may as well as everyone else has

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#95742 Jul 9, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
What is "reasonable" about claiming that fur traders would make it prohibitively time-consuming, dangerous, and expensive to harvest their livestock's pelts by transporting the entire species (all the koala fur traders formed a collective, perhaps?) to an island in the middle of an unexplored ocean, and then proceeded to eradicate every molecule of evidence of their commerce as well as of koalas ever existing anywhere on the Asian continent?
And, how did you conclude that ^that^ is the most likely explanation for koalas appearing only on Australia?
Would somebody tell me where "fur traders" would have come from after a world flood? There were no animals or traders cause they were all drowned in the flood. If there were only 2 koalas on the ark, I guess the furtraders, the koalas and the trip to Australia are all figments of UCs imaganation.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#95743 Jul 9, 2012
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would somebody tell me where "fur traders" would have come from after a world flood? There were no animals or traders cause they were all drowned in the flood. If there were only 2 koalas on the ark, I guess the furtraders, the koalas and the trip to Australia are all figments of UCs imaganation.
How DARE you use logic against Urbie's argument! That's completely unfair and hitting below the belt!

;-)

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#95744 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I also said I don't know how they got there. But I gave you several possibilities. Then you tried to claim Koalas are immobile
I never said they were immobile. I said they had slow metabolisms and wouldn't be built for long treks with little or no food. I don't expect you to keep facts straight, since you're so busy making up stories out of whole cloth.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
and I showed video of them running, swimming across rivers, attacking people, etc.
Fat guys can sprint. Orangutans can swim. Hamsters can attack people. None of that means fat guys are going to win marathons, orangutans are going to cross oceans by swimming, or hamsters are going to slaughter humanity. If this is the best you can muster, doesn't that make you feel the least bit of shame?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Then you said coming over by ship is ridiculous and I showed you another species that did just that.
It wasn't coming over by ship that was ridiculous. What WAS ridiculous was everything else that your story requires:

*rounding up the entire species
*eradicating all the evidence they ever existed anywhere other than Australia
*fur traders taking their livestock somewhere they wouldn't be able to retrieve them without prohibitive expense, time, and danger

THAT is what's ridiculous. Your story requires all of these things to have happened. You say it's the most likely explanation, so YOU have the burden of explaining why the traders would have brought the koalas, why they would have sought the elimination of all koala evidence everywhere but Australia, why they would have rounded up all the koalas from the entire continent, how they would have done so...all of this is YOUR burden to explain to be able to say that it's the "most likely" explanation. Whenever you're ready, sweetheart.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And so what? Even if you are unwilling to accept any of my possible explanations, that doesn't prove anything. You're in a much worse situation regarding evolution as there isn't any ideas out there how they could have possibly evolved.
They evolved the way other animals evolved. Sex and death.

Do you honestly think that finding a gap in our knowledge makes your "fur traders" story suddenly legitimate?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
So I have a minor gap that can easily be filled with several reasonable suggestions of how Koalas immigrated to Australia; while you, on the other hand, are at a complete loss with regards to their evolution. You certainly aren't hurting my position and you certainly aren't helping yours any either.
Nonsense. Explain to us how your fur trader story qualifies as the most likely explanation for koalas appearing only on Australia. Please show your work.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#95745 Jul 9, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Oh and by the way, the origin of life and abiogenesis IS a part of evolution. You guys have been lying all along about that. I happen to know this because I am studying for a biology test and have the No. 1 college biology text and a review book. Bunch a fibbers.
Evidence? Oh, right. YOU SAID SO. Excuse us for not accepting that at face value. After your whole "fur trader" exercise, there's hardly a person who ought to do so.

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) 22 min DanFromSmithville 40,587
News Hacked emails show Democratic party hostility t... 37 min Just Think 175
News If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) 3 hr nanoanomaly 161
News Junk food-loving fathers raise their future dau... 13 hr Here is what I 2
Consumer Electronics Will Dominate the Biometri... 13 hr iritechinc 1
The bearing 14 hr Andybaby 1
Wearing diapers makes people incotinent BEWARE (Dec '10) Mon Brenda 22
More from around the web