Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 5,517)

Showing posts 110,321 - 110,340 of168,616
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113254
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Kong_ wrote:
FYI: I am NOT the most learned person on these threads.


Agreed.
Kong_ wrote:
I am also passionate about keeping religious nut-jobs out of public school curriculum planning.
So again: If you have something to offer in the way of science (or pseudoscience), be prepared to defend it.
Kong, we have no interest in teaching religion in public schools. I have subscribed and have been a member of several local, national, and international creation science organizations and this is not even an agenda item.(There still may be a small few that are passionate about it but it is not pursued as such in the larger organizations such as CRS, AIG, ICR, etc. We would however, like to see a more balanced approach taught with regards to evolution. It seems you people just have it out for Christians for some reasons as if for sport or fueled hatred/bigotry. Why do you hate us so much? What have we done to offend you? Does love and charity offend you? I am not a religious person as I don't go to church. But I believe the Bible and Jesus Christ as my creator and savior. Obviously if I believe in creation and intelligent design I would have to believe someone was behind it and I happen to be convinced by the evidence that it is God. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe and I will not try to convince you. Do I ever try and push it on you? No. You need to look inward at yourself and ask yourself why you have this axe to grind. Why you feel the need - the passion that drives you - to insult, belittle, ostrisize, condemn Christians just for what they believe. That's pure bigotry.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113255
Jan 2, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Did any scientists ever *seriously* believe that?
Or is that more like the "Scientists used to think that the Earth was flat" story?
<quoted text>
Lots of him (both fiction and non-fiction).
<quoted text>
Yes, that's why it was called "science fiction".
<quoted text>
I have serious doubts that it was ever alive. Can you provide any evidence that it was?
Drew, the point in Asimov's Foundation that I was making was that he made the assumption that with enough knowledge, prediction would be close to perfect. SF? Yes. But Asimov was also a Ph.D in molecular biology, writing pre-Lorenz.

If we go back to the early days of Chaos theory, Lorenz assumed that predicting the climate using variables to 3 decimal places would give results approximately equal to the same predictive model using 4 decimal places. He was genuinely surprised when that proved not to be the case, to the point where he thought there was an error. The models correlated closely for a few days than followed radically different predictive paths.

Wiki -

"In 1814, Laplace published what is usually known as the first articulation of causal or scientific determinism:[39]

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities[40]"

Note the world view embodied in that statement, by one of the great mathematicians and scientists of the time. It is not to say that he imagined we would ever reach that point of supreme intelligence and perfect prediction, but that such a view was conceivable and we would become better and better at predicting given more accurate information.

To go back to Lorenz...the idea that given 10 decimal places, or 100, or 1000, we would be able to successfully predict weather further and further into the future.

Its really only since the effects of feedback and "increasing returns" and non-linearity in general has been fully appreciated that this world view has been shattered. Tiny events can have effects that compound massively beyond simple expectations. I could give and example - one random mutation in one strand of DNA may conceivably have altered the course of human evolution and be therefore "responsible" for everything from the Great Pyramids to Beethoven's 5th to the birth and death of the Twinkie. That is not the world view embodied in Laplace's famous statement.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113256
Jan 2, 2013
 
obesity wrote:
<quoted text>
Should creationism be taught in school..why not?? Did I specify a science classroom, no I did not. History class, maybe. Ancient alien theory along with other theories should be taught in schools..it makes people think. I never said it should be taught in a SCIENCE class.
We haven't even discovered everything there is to know about earth. "They"always talk about evolution and Lucy etc, but there are always holes in the theory of evolution. Until we explore ever inch of land and water, everything is up in the air. Obviously we came from a common ancestor, but how do we know where exactly that common ancestor came from?? Algae? It could very well be from a race of beings that are from somewhere other than earth. They used to teach as fact that we came from monkeys and that has been debunked. Evolution simply means change, of course evolution happens all the time. The truth is the truth wether we have discovered it or not.
I would have nothing against a philosophy class that looked at any number of wild ideas like aliens or YEC. So long as it was embedded in study of formal logic, and training in common human cognitive biases along with some real understanding of statistics.

Then you might have some useful outcomes. If not, then leave alien landing talk in the school yard at recess!

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113257
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Epigenetic studies in DNA methylation using white blood cells shows major differences between apes and humans. Other studies on brain cells show the same marked differences. It proves apes are different than humans.

http://www.icr.org/article/7157/

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113258
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have nothing against a philosophy class that looked at any number of wild ideas like aliens or YEC. So long as it was embedded in study of formal logic, and training in common human cognitive biases along with some real understanding of statistics.
Then you might have some useful outcomes. If not, then leave alien landing talk in the school yard at recess!
Or how about even wilder ideas like a universe out of nothing from nobody? Or life from non-life? Or microbes turning into men? That's some pretty wild stuff!

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113259
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed.
<quoted text>
Kong, we have no interest in teaching religion in public schools. I have subscribed and have been a member of several local, national, and international creation science organizations and this is not even an agenda item.(There still may be a small few that are passionate about it but it is not pursued as such in the larger organizations such as CRS, AIG, ICR, etc. We would however, like to see a more balanced approach taught with regards to evolution. It seems you people just have it out for Christians for some reasons as if for sport or fueled hatred/bigotry. Why do you hate us so much? What have we done to offend you? Does love and charity offend you? I am not a religious person as I don't go to church. But I believe the Bible and Jesus Christ as my creator and savior. Obviously if I believe in creation and intelligent design I would have to believe someone was behind it and I happen to be convinced by the evidence that it is God. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe and I will not try to convince you. Do I ever try and push it on you? No. You need to look inward at yourself and ask yourself why you have this axe to grind. Why you feel the need - the passion that drives you - to insult, belittle, ostrisize, condemn Christians just for what they believe. That's pure bigotry.
Love and charity do not offend me.

The corruption of science by a bunch of liars who deliberately distort the findings of real researchers, i.e. "Creation Scientists", now that offends me. And its not Christian either.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113260
Jan 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Epigenetic studies in DNA methylation using white blood cells shows major differences between apes and humans. Other studies on brain cells show the same marked differences. It proves apes are different than humans.
http://www.icr.org/article/7157/
Well, right here is the first lie spotted in your article:

"Despite the fact that the most similar type of cell known between humans and apes was selected, scientists were surprised that they detected major methylation profile differences in over 1,500 different regions of the human genome when they were compared to chimp genomes."

In fact white blood cells would be expected to be among the most DIFFERENT, for a very obvious reason. Do you have any idea HOW white blood cells "learn" to fend off novel diseases? They actually activate a hypermutation zone which randomly develops new "keys" - protein sequences" in an attempt to match the profile of new pathogens. That is how antibodies are developed! So in the whole body, its here where you would expect the MOST change after 6-8 million years of separate "disease fighting" histories. Yet your article claims that these cells should be the most similar.

As for neural cells, the other type cited. What do you think is the most obvious and significant difference between humans and chimps. The brain. Duh.

Now, how about they test muscle cells, or liver cells, or bone cells? This is a typical creationist crock.

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113261
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Love and charity do not offend me.
The corruption of science by a bunch of liars who deliberately distort the findings of real researchers, i.e. "Creation Scientists", now that offends me. And its not Christian either.
You are the liar. And the bigot.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113262
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
Regarding "macroevolution" this, and the long ages required, is my main complaint.(I am aware of the controversy!) Genetic diversity and polymorphism is observed and accepted; macroevolution, or one kind of plant or animal changing over long periods/universal common descent, into a completely different type, is not.
Speciation in one generation? Where did you get that idea? Creation science doesn't think you or anybody else beleives that. Are you talking about puncuated equilibrium vs. gradualism? I think even that theory requires a scale of tens or thousands of years. It seems you have some major misconceptions regarding creation science. Speciation can occur due to mutation or genetic drift and selection. Regarding speciation, there is allopatric speciation where two populations are separated and sympatric speciation where members have a genetic difference which develops into a different population. There is also adaptive radiation. Or perhaps you were referring to the Hardy-Weinberg Law of Equilibrium that says p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 where p = T and q = t? This shows how recessive genes remains in a population from generation to generation with the qualification that there is no migration, mutations, selection, or genetic drift occuring. So please clarify.
That's so cute when you talk Biology. Reminds me of a little kid standing on the front seat of his Mom's car and pretending he's driving.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113263
Jan 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Or how about even wilder ideas like a universe out of nothing from nobody? Or life from non-life? Or microbes turning into men? That's some pretty wild stuff!
Yes, the first one is a wild idea. Fortunately or theories of evolution and for that matter cosmology do not depend on that assumption. "We don't know" is the correct answer - whether the universe came from nothing, whether its the only universe, whether the concept of "before the big bang" is even meaningful.

Life from non-life? Either its physically possible or its not. Nothing wild about that. We either find a naturally plausible pathway or we don't.

Microbes turning into men? That is a wild idea! But this one is supported by mountains of evidence, so like some other wild ideas - relativity and wave/particle duality, its not a crazy one, just one that your intuition has a problem with.

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113264
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, right here is the first lie spotted in your article:
"Despite the fact that the most similar type of cell known between humans and apes was selected, scientists were surprised that they detected major methylation profile differences in over 1,500 different regions of the human genome when they were compared to chimp genomes."
In fact white blood cells would be expected to be among the most DIFFERENT, for a very obvious reason. Do you have any idea HOW white blood cells "learn" to fend off novel diseases? They actually activate a hypermutation zone which randomly develops new "keys" - protein sequences" in an attempt to match the profile of new pathogens. That is how antibodies are developed! So in the whole body, its here where you would expect the MOST change after 6-8 million years of separate "disease fighting" histories. Yet your article claims that these cells should be the most similar.
As for neural cells, the other type cited. What do you think is the most obvious and significant difference between humans and chimps. The brain. Duh.
Now, how about they test muscle cells, or liver cells, or bone cells? This is a typical creationist crock.
Illogical...delusional...disho nest.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113265
Jan 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Speciation can occur due to mutation or genetic drift and selection. Regarding speciation, there is allopatric speciation where two populations are separated and sympatric speciation where members have a genetic difference which develops into a different population.
So which of these mechanisms do you believe to be impossible, since you are still convinced of "forever separate Kinds"? Especially given that the fossil record has a complete absence of the modern Kinds in the early part (no mammals, no birds)and the loss of a great many Kinds progressively through the record (armoured fish, trilobites, archosaurs, cynodonts, dinosaurs)?

Still going with the "fastest runner" theory, even for plants??? There have been plants on land for over 400 million years, but no flowering plants appear in the record until 140 million years ago. Even in your compressed timeframe, its still a mystery you cannot answer (but evolution can).

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113266
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
That's so cute when you talk Biology. Reminds me of a little kid standing on the front seat of his Mom's car and pretending he's driving.
Moronic.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113267
Jan 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Illogical...delusional...disho nest.
Poor thing. You have no answer.

You cant explain to me why the fastest changing, mutating cells in the body - white blood cells - cells that actually mutate actively in response to pathogens - are claimed to be the most similar and unchanging by your Creation Science buddies?

You have a problem.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113268
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the liar. And the bigot.
I will just go back to clear examples that you have failed to acknowledge but cannot refute.

Coe and Prevot did groundbreaking work on fluctuations in the magnetic field during a single magnetic reversal.

Snelling the "creation scientist" skunk blatantly twisted their work to support the completely different concept that the 170+ reversals seen on the ocean floor could have occurred within a 1 year flood period.

His errors were pointed out, and he continued to lie. Never got out there for months crawling around lava beds like they did. Never got his hands dirty or his mind clean.

That's one.

Using the question of the Moon's recession pointed out in the 60's as a problem but ignoring the solution provided by tectonic plate movement - back in the early 80's! Thats two.

Quoting Popper as saying that evolution did not qualify as a testable theory, earlier in his career, but ignoring that he reversed that view later on when he understood evolution better. That's three.

Idiots like Berlinski simply making up stupid numbers (50,000 differences between a cow and a whale!) when he claims the precision of mathematics is on his side. That's four.

Or those idiots that deliberately looked for known sources of error in radiometric dating such as flawed sampling, using methods on inappropriate timescales, etc, to try and debunk the methods, knowing full well that 95% of sampling prove accurate over multiple overlapping test methods. Thats five.

Now claiming that white blood cells should be the most similar with chimps when clearly they should be the most different. Thats six.

There is nothing bigoted about point out to you that your sources are either mistaken or downright lying. Wake up.

Since: Aug 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113269
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor thing. You have no answer.
You cant explain to me why the fastest changing, mutating cells in the body - white blood cells - cells that actually mutate actively in response to pathogens - are claimed to be the most similar and unchanging by your Creation Science buddies?
You have a problem.
No, you have a problem.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113270
Jan 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have a problem.
In order to create a testing ground for human souls, which is what you seem to think this universe is for, was there any need for 10^23 stars, or galaxies so distant their light took 13 billion years to get here? Any need for the Red Spot? Any need for billions of generations of extinct cnidarians?

Saying evolution was not necessary is just silly, given the superabundance of practically everything else in this universe!

Either it pleased God to create a universe with evolution and Quasars, or these things just happened.

Either way, they happened.

Just because primitive men writing the Bible were not aware of them and do not mention distant galaxies, bacteria, or radio waves, does not mean they don't exist. Just because any Genesis account of creation is at best an inaccurate potted summary of the last 13.6 billion years, or at worst merely another pre-scientific human myth evolution is too well supported to ignore.

For all you know, God in his wisdom might have thought it more relevant to primitive tribesmen to give a potted summary than to confound their limited understanding. After all, they seemed to have trouble doing what they were told even when He stuck to the point.

I would suggest that like other Christians who have actually learned science, even going back to Thomas Aquinas, but today including the likes of Glen Morton, Craig Ventor, and Michael Denton, you look at the facts and accommodate them into your Christianity instead of banging your head against the wall or listening to liars.

Its you who have backed yourself in to a corner of such literal rigidity that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113271
Jan 3, 2013
 
obesity wrote:
I used to work at a plant nursery. Every year there some "special" new plants that we would order. It's was either a new flower or foliage color, certain type of disease resistance, different shape, different amount of petals etc. these variations didn't come about on there own. There was a human being responsible for their creation.
Erm, wow, you are really compounding your complete and total lack of study in scientific subjects. That's not "creation," that's actually called engineering. The same way we engineered cattle, corns, bananas, and many others. You need to learn what the word create means.

Also, there is a larger variety of natural flora than we have ever even managed to engineer, it's more possible that a lot of the ones you got that were "special" were even just ones recently added to the collection.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113272
Jan 3, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Illogical...delusional...disho nest.
You shouldn't back the liars you are backing in this. They have been exposed as liars, and you projecting that doesn't help your case at all.

The scientific community admits, and exposes, it's own frauds, you would be wise to learn from them.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113273
Jan 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh go choke on your haggis you lying witch.
Oh yes, christian melt down, I just love to see it.

Honey I have no god to lie for so I have no need to lie, I have zero tolerance for lies and hence the reason you have been chewed and spat out

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 110,321 - 110,340 of168,616
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

39 Users are viewing the Science / Technology Forum right now

Search the Science / Technology Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 33 min TruthHurts2 605
Invention Could Herald Interactive Revolution 1 hr mrniceguyuc4 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 6 hr nanoanomaly 4,829
How to Find, Download and Install Latest Java V... 7 hr GuideOfWeb 2
China says 1/5 of its farmland polluted 9 hr RESISTANCE IS FUTILE 6
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 22 hr sOlding not For Stealing 126
Is the galaxy full of Earths? Sat PDX Dave 3
•••
•••
•••
•••