Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104857 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are. See references prior post.
Which reference was that?

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104858 Oct 15, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The following is more proof of how ignorant the entire scientific community can be, as not one scientist in the world showed.
Lenski's antibiotic claim
If you claim something, show proof.
Lenski and or lederberg should have had the sense to reverse the experiment, to show that when 10 million antibiotic resistantt bacteria were cultured, they produced one that was non antibiotic resistant. One or both should have cultured 10 million bacteria that were non resistant, to see if an antibiotic resistant bacteria developed.
Bacteria may develop both every 10 millionth one as a memory device. If so, that should tell science quite a lot.
By Jim Ryan 
There's no evidence that memory devices work on any numerical schedule. The mutation could have occurred at any one of the 31,500 (the actual number in the experiment) generations, and if it was a memory device, the reverse also could have also occurred within the same frame. But only the mutation occurred, so it is reasonable to assume that no memory device would be evident. The alternative would be to run experiments in ever increasing amounts to infinity.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#104859 Oct 15, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
So? There were a lot of them then. Big deal.
<quoted text>
Certainly not! Where the hell did you get that idea? You gotta get your head out of your excellent creationist journals.
<quoted text>
That depends on how you define 'eye'
<quoted text>
I don't recall anyone saying they were primitive.
<quoted text>
Perhaps if you really understood it, you might think differently. But go on back to your journals. I'm sure you will find even more fascinating misinformation in there.
Secular sources. Evolutionists. You're in complete denial Mike. You won't even listen to reason from your own people.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104860 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Those are different species. Nothing preceeds them either and they are all from what you call the Cambrian. But I didn't think you'd get it. It's a joke you think they evolved from simpler forms when there is no earlier forms. And did I mention they are the most advanced eyes in all of history? Oh but everything is possible with evolution! What a joke.
What this points to is that evolution does not have a goal.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104861 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the Cambrian not called, "The age of the trilobites"?
Are trilobites not considered by evolutionists as one of the first creatures to evolve?
Are these not the "oldest" eyes on record?
Yet the eye of the trilobite is anything but primitive! Paleontologist Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History commented:
"These lenses—technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses—optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived. We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate." (as quoted in Ellis, 2001, p. 49, emp. added).
"Riccardo Levi-Setti, one of the world’s most renowned trilobite experts, remarked:“In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock.... The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure”(1993, p. 54,57, emp. added). Evolutionist David Raup admitted:“The trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today”(1979, 50:24). Science writer Lisa Shawyer concluded:“Trilobites had “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” Ian Taylor asked:“If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the human eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would he have thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?”(1992, p. 169, emp. added).
But they are not around now, they went extinct "hundreds of millions of years ago" (in evolutonary terms).
Your theory is going the wrong way! It makes no sense!
How many years has Urb been debating here and he still does not now the first thing about fossilization.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104862 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the Cambrian not called, "The age of the trilobites"?
Are trilobites not considered by evolutionists as one of the first creatures to evolve?
Are these not the "oldest" eyes on record?
Yet the eye of the trilobite is anything but primitive! Paleontologist Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History commented:
"These lenses—technically termed aspherical, aplanatic lenses—optimize both light collecting and image formation better than any lens ever conceived. We can be justifiably amazed that these trilobites, very early in the history of life on Earth, hit upon the best possible lens design that optical physics has ever been able to formulate." (as quoted in Ellis, 2001, p. 49, emp. added).
"Riccardo Levi-Setti, one of the world’s most renowned trilobite experts, remarked:“In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock.... The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure”(1993, p. 54,57, emp. added). Evolutionist David Raup admitted:“The trilobites used an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today”(1979, 50:24). Science writer Lisa Shawyer concluded:“Trilobites had “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” Ian Taylor asked:“If Darwin turned cold at the thought of the human eye at the end of the evolutionary cycle, what, one wonders, would he have thought of the trilobite eye near the beginning?”(1992, p. 169, emp. added).
But they are not around now, they went extinct "hundreds of millions of years ago" (in evolutonary terms).
Your theory is going the wrong way! It makes no sense!
So what you seem to be inferring is that if humans are still around in 500,000,000 years, we might have some very interesting eyes.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104863 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
i.e., anything goes!
You are beginning to get it. Whatever works tends to survive.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104864 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular sources. Evolutionists.
So prevaricating and cite them.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
You're in complete denial Mike. You won't even listen to reason from your own people.
*I* amd in denial? Funny. I'm not the dope who thought trilobites were the first species to evolve.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104865 Oct 15, 2012
Damn! I gotta swap this keyboard out in this laptop. It's getting freaky.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104866 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are. See references prior post.
Even if they have the very best eyes of every and any species that ever existed, the whole organism does not exist for the purpose of retaining any one characteristic. Its survival is based on the total of all of its parts. Many genes, perhaps most, depend on other genes for function. So a mutation of one organ may have an effect on the function of other organs.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104867 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like saying, the history of farting goes back further than Christian universities. How dumb.
It just means that education is a product of its time. Both witch doctors and priests no longer meet the needs of current society.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104868 Oct 15, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Trilobites date back to 526 million years ago.
Life dates back to more than 3 billion years ago.
Don't confuse him, YEC's aren't very good with numbers.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104869 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the Cambrian not called, "The age of the trilobites"?
No, it's called "The age of the trilobite." Where God magically poofed just one trilobite kind into being and they never changed ever ever ever ever and that's exactly what the fossil record shows about them trilobites. Just like them shrimp which are EXACTLY the same as today, and the coelecanth EXACTLY the same as today. And the...

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104870 Oct 15, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like saying, the history of farting goes back further than Christian universities. How dumb.
(You opened this door, so I couldn't help but to walk in)

Yes, it's like christian education/farting---secular education/objective reality.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104871 Oct 15, 2012
Johny wrote:
This is related to ID, something different compared to Creationism. Read up on Dembski's explanatory filter which is essentially a filter to determine the pattern characteristic - if it is natural or designed. The cool thing about the SLoT is that it also can be a tool to determine ID based on physics rather than information, though the information in ID could be gathered from physics. The trigger of the filter can be modified somewhat to just look for rare events (patterns, processes or chemicals). When you see a convergence of rare events of interest, then you see a location which warrants further investigation.
In other words, if it exists then it hasn't succumbed to entropy yet. Therefore EVERYTHING is designed! Making the concept non-falsifiable, and hence non-scientific. BRILLIANT!

(Therefore Goddidit with magic by violating the SLoT - ahem)
Johny wrote:
So you see, pontificating the propaganda of evolutionists without understanding Creationism or ID (they are different)
Yes, you could say one is the Old Testament, and one is the New Testament. And both have the same premise - Goddidit with magic.
Johny wrote:
will lead you down an ignorant path lost in the woods.
Too late, you're a creationist. You were lost before you got here.
Johny wrote:
Again, I have stated that evolution in some fashion highjacks design so I imagine that it does lead to some useful conclusions, though you could do the same thing probably more effectively with an ID framework.
Of course. Except for the fact it's the other way around.
Johny wrote:
What is the definition of "junk"? Is it useful? Evolution would suppose that there is a lot of left over genetic junk which serves no purpose. We are finding today that more and more of that "junk" is useful. That is significant and I will predict also (another Creationist prediction) that there is very little "junk" DNA. Again, searching out that junk DNA and looking for the function will lead to many advances (another Creationist prediction).
Except there IS non-coding DNA. Chicken teeth falsifies the all animals on the Ark were veggies hypothesis.
Johny wrote:
Furthermore, I would predict (another Creationist prediction) that we will find that life is very coupled genetically, meaning that the genome is irreducibly complex! This would mean that the supposed development of the evolutionary tree is not possible!
Which contradicts Genesis and the Flood. Keep talking.
Johny wrote:
Of course evolutionists will never give Creationists credit for anything, and they will never deny their faith - evolution - just like they start redefining "junk DNA" to get around their false evolutionary predictions and at the same time true Creationist predictions!
They aren't given credit because they don't DO anything.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104872 Oct 15, 2012
Johny wrote:
To get new systems (eyes, ears, heart, lungs, finger) you need many mutations - that is an obvious fact.
Except for bilateral symmetry. WHOOPS!(example just one mutation can cause an extra digit on each hand)
Johny wrote:
You can look at the structure and connecting parts and it should be obvious. For example, the eye needs the lens, retina, vitreous humor, cornea, optic nerve, and all the smarts to read the information. How many mutations would it take to go from no eye to having an eye? The mutations leading to the changes in the brain alone would be large. How many new types of cells would be required? How about all the very precise mutations needed for the connecting structure? How about all the required blood vessels in the eye? They all have to be the right size and location. How about all the hidden scaffolding required in the construction of the eye? You see, the mutations need to be very precise or there will be no functioning system. So the real question is, "What is the probability of all these mutations coalescing together into one genome out of a population?" I think we CAN prove that the probability is VERY small.
Interdependency. Not a problem. That's like saying one row of bricks can never get higher to become a wall. If life worked the way you say it did you can never develop from a fetus to an adult. As always you stick "design" in as God of the gaps, but present zero mechanisms or evidence.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104873 Oct 15, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
If we take the balloon example where you blow it up and let go of it. What will happen. Thermodynamics predicts the direction of processes. The air will come out propelling the balloon around the room. This balloon IS an OPEN system and there is a known limit to complexity.
How is "complexity" quantified/measured?

Don't worry, not even your buddy Billy can answer this one.
Johny wrote:
The air molecules will disperse out of the balloon into the room. Even the statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are systems that if you examine them are OPEN systems. You could not make these restrictive statements - which the statements are - if what you say above is true! You have been reading too much propaganda from ignorant evolutionists!
Except when the balloon is expelling air it is using up energy and not being supplied with any more. Your analogy fails because energy and the mechanisms to make use of it has never been addressed.

But hey, don't let that stop you from wiping out all life on the entire planet.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104874 Oct 15, 2012
Johny wrote:
For function to happen you DO need a goal. That is what design engineering is all about. And the most amazing designs known to mankind are life in its many forms! The very first mutation requires the next very precise mutations or nothing will connect together and function! It cannot work better if it is not connected together! This doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand now! This is the error of evolutionists, for they lack basic common sense! I can hear a biologist saying now:
"I'm a biologist and the toe bone don't need to be connected to the foot bone; and the foot bone don't need to be connected to the fibula bone; and the fibula bone don't need to be connected to the knee bone; and the knee bone don't need to connect to the femur bone ... The human will be OK and he can dance all over the room!"
Just one problem - you have no way of determining that organisms are the outcome of a predetermined goal put in place by an intelligent agent.

Oh, and you STILL haven't got any mechanisms.

At all.
Johny wrote:
Evolutionists talk about all this BAD design in nature, but I would take issue with them. First, to really determine bad design you need to know the requirements. Do you know what the requirements are? Are you God?
Bad design, good design, it's all subjective anyway. Any contradictions are merely the result of TEH FALL anyway therefore no valid predictions can be made - does it work good? Then it's intelligently designed!!! Does it not work good? Then it's all Adam and Eve's fault!!!
Johny wrote:
The blind spot is probably useful in some fashion, maybe for tracking things. This would be my guess, though it would be interesting to follow it up with research. Sometimes in design you may have competing requirements so the best design is a balance between the two. For example, you may want a person to be strong but also travel long and fast. Too much muscle mass will slow the person down, but too little will not give him much strength. Some middle point needs to be reached for the "optimal" design. These kind of statements are ridiculous!
That's because you're a creationist.
Johny wrote:
Another Creationist prediction would be that our genomes within our populations are deteriorating with time - at one time we were perfect. The Bible says that humankind lived over 1000 years, most of it healthy lives before the flood!
Then AGAIN I ask, based on modern genetics and current mutation rates, how do you explain the EXPONENTIAL INCREASE of the human population across Earth, and at what time point will the human genome reach critical mass and no longer be viable?

So far neither Cowboy, you, nor your "science" buddy Sanford have been able to answer those questions.

Oh, by the way - the Flood never happened. If it did then that means all life on Earth died (including Noah), Sol is now a binary system and evolution DEFINITELY happened (presumably after God fixed it all (again) with more magic), because you do not have the slightest comprehension of the natural consequences of your statements.

Or we can just point out the fact that there's zero evidence for TEH FLOOD.

At all.

Not even a widdle tiny ickle bit.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104875 Oct 15, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter if it is an engineered product or life. Does your knee bone need to connect to your leg bone for you to walk down the street - assuming you don't have a prosthetic leg or other device? You need to go back and think what I said through!
Thought about it.

Yep, you're still talking crapp.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104876 Oct 15, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
Let us say that you have a first mutation. You are going to need many more precise mutations to get the functioning system capable of being favored in selection. There is also a vast number of possible mutations that lead to dead ends and to loss of function. They may survive but no new systems will evolve.
Precision is not necessary. I present to you THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE as evidence.
Johny wrote:
The probability of the many precise mutations is just too small!
The probability cannot be calculated, therefore you are merely projecting your theological objections into a discussion which you cannot hope to back up with evidence.

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) 4 hr Endofdays 79,855
News The case for Trump-Russia collusion: We're gett... 9 hr youll shoot your ... 96
News Now at Whole Foods: Cheaper milk, 'farm fresh' ... Tue a_visitor 5
News Help wanted: Amazon holds job fair to hire 50,0... Tue Simplejim 3
News Reem Alattas, the inventor of a next-generation... Sep 18 America Gentleman... 2
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) Sep 18 SoE 14,526
News If there's alien life in the universe, where is... (Jul '15) Sep 17 SoE 209
More from around the web