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

#116274 Feb 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
They are joined at the hip Chimney. One is an excuse for the other. But there are other, more sophisticated explanations for the star-distance problem, other than the dumbed-down distance = time version that evolutionists like. We've discussed this before. Remember Dr. John Hartnett? Basically, if the speed of light has not changed, the only thing left is time itself. How do we know there wasn't a huge time-dilation event early in the history of the universe? So if the universe was created (or formed by whatever) around the earth and then rapidly inflated, time would seem to have been billions of years on earth which really only took days. The CMB is there, and there are many other clues; the comets, the young sun paradox, the spiral arms of galaxies even in the farthest reaches, etc.

The speed of light is a constant.
Comets are billions of years old.
The sun is 4.5 billion years old

What is the problem.

ALL of REAL science fits together like a glove. None of this piecemeal creationist wishful thinking.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116275 Feb 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
......
. Plus the fact that there are as many or more out of place fossils than evolutionary ones.
....
Care to back this up Urban ?

Had a long week at work myself so its possible I have asked this before - however can't recall ever getting a response.

Sure you can provide some evidence of your claim - otherwise you are no better than Jimbo.

Thanks in advance
Alien Outlaw

Kansas City, MO

#116276 Feb 7, 2013
Lowell Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Detecting intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would be a monumental scientific discovery. Why would we NOT try to do that? Because we're afraid of the unknown, perhaps, but nothing good ever came from hiding oneself from reality.
Humans don't understand. Its fantastic that humans are searching for and trying to make contact with intelligent/earth like beings(alien life forms).....great! Its funny, 99% of all humans believe in a God in one form or another, why not search for or make contact with them? Instead, humans are going after the two things that are unattainable: Contact with advanced Beings(first humans must discover alien technology) and finding earth like planets with life.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116277 Feb 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, call me a liar. Yes, like that's mature.

You confabulate to support your distorted world view.

That may not technically be lying, but it is not unreasonable for a rational person to call it that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116278 Feb 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course we have. Ever watch "Biggest Loser"? Do you even understand the concept? You're just being silly.

This is your own logic twisted back in on you. You just admitted your own failure (and used a common fallacy for good measure!).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116279 Feb 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
These guys get fed the pablum from talkorigins and they assume we look up to this guy as our leader and we've never even heard of Povin. It's ridiculous.

You quote Hovind's ideas. So even if you have never heard of him you are influenced by him. He is one of the founders of modern creationism (and a common criminal).

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116280 Feb 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No idiot. They check the scale each week. Sheeez!

And how often do we measure the speed of light (directly or indirectly)?

You are so stupid.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116281 Feb 7, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd agree that he seems to have an IQ in the normal range. The messages one gets in the process of education can make a very big difference.
When he first came to Topix he made lots of obviously intentional spelling and grammar mistakes. My first guess was that he was a sock puppet, but later came to the conclusion that he was attempting to grab sympathy--or perhaps projecting a means to protect his true identity. At any rate, he eventually cleaned up his spelling and grammar and showed that he could put ideas together in a flowing manner, though the premise for those ideas were flawed.
The delusion that his ideas would always be right regardless of contrary evidence was probably supported early in his education, either by his teachers giving up on him or by his mother's active praise for any effort he made.

Actually his spelling and grammar are still pretty bad once you factor out all of the (unattributed) quotes. He also now uses voice recognition software which cleans it up a great deal.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#116282 Feb 7, 2013
holy cow wrote:
I cant believe we have telescopes that can see 20 light years away!! Isnt one light year 5 trillion miles?? Thats so amazing. After the discovery of millions of earth like planets not that far from us, i am convinced we are not alone and we are here because of aliens.
Please post the list of millions of earth like planets not that far from us.

So far as I know, there are earth similar planets identified, and only a handful of those. It is unlikely human life would do well on any of them.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116283 Feb 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
All of them lie. Some of them have gone to prison for tax evasion, too.
"Some of them"?
Who of "them"?

I guess there are no atheist evolutionists in prison for tax evasion?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116284 Feb 7, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You quote Hovind's ideas. So even if you have never heard of him you are influenced by him. He is one of the founders of modern creationism (and a common criminal).
Modern creationism.....?
Hmmmm
Haven't heard that one before...
Did that start with Noah?

Or perchance Jesus??
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116285 Feb 7, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, you are as dishonest as any other creationist and now I can honestly call you a creatard. You are trying to use claims that the Cambrian was only a few million years long, and it wasn't, to debunk evolution. Yet in the past you have shown that you have YEC beliefs.
If you truly are a YEC then you cannot use that sort of claim to debunk evolution since you don't believe it either.
When a creationist is found not to be honest, and being inconsistent in your beliefs is one way not to be honest, then you cross over into the land of tards.
Your usual skim reads have let you down again.....and again.....

I think you should go to bed and stay there

You need a good lie down and a rest

Come back when everything is not so blurry around the edges...

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116286 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
"Some of them"?
Who of "them"?
I guess there are no atheist evolutionists in prison for tax evasion?

Probably not. Atheists are rare in prison. Seems that either only religious people commit crimes or only religious people get caught.

But that is not the point. The point is that there is a breed of creationist who are only in it for the money. They sell books, give talks at fundy churches, get donations to their web sites,....

There is no reason for a Christian to have to be dumbed down by literal creationism. Join those of us who have enough faith to reject creationist nonsense and keep our belief in God. If you have eyes to see and ears to hear then you should try using them.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116287 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern creationism.....?
Hmmmm
Haven't heard that one before...
Did that start with Noah?
Or perchance Jesus??

Actually 'Creationism' came into being in the 1870's.

Modern Creationism was developed by Henry Morris.

Funny, you are as out of touch with creationism as you are with real science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116288 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Your usual skim reads have let you down again.....and again.....
I think you should go to bed and stay there
You need a good lie down and a rest
Come back when everything is not so blurry around the edges...

Sounds like SZ nailed you.


Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, you are as dishonest as any other creationist and now I can honestly call you a creatard. You are trying to use claims that the Cambrian was only a few million years long, and it wasn't, to debunk evolution. Yet in the past you have shown that you have YEC beliefs.
If you truly are a YEC then you cannot use that sort of claim to debunk evolution since you don't believe it either.
When a creationist is found not to be honest, and being inconsistent in your beliefs is one way not to be honest, then you cross over into the land of tards.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116289 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have distinctive genomes, existing data, as it were, to use a phrase Dawkins uses a lot, "as it were", variable expression is not evolution.
A quote from an evolutionary biologist:
"Multicellularity is widely viewed as a unique attribute of eukaryotes, somehow made possible by the origin of a more complex cellular architecture and, without question, with the assistance of natural selection.[EDITED FOR BREVITY] radically different cell morphologies.
Nevertheless, King (45) states that “this historical predisposition of eukaryotes to the unicellular lifestyle begs the question of what selective advantages might have been conferred by the transition to multicellularity;” and Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements."
BUT WHERE IS THE DIRECT SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT COMPLEXITY IS ROOTED IN ADAPTIVE PROCESSES?(My emphasis)
"But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48)."
Michael Lynch, "The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity", PNAS, May 15, 2007, Vol 104, Suppl 1.
He also states in Table 1 in this same paper in realtion to natural selection being a directional force in gaining complexity:
"There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity."
In relation to genetic drift, also Table 1:
"By reducing the efficiency of selection, random genetic drift imposes a high degree of directionality on evolution by increasing the likelihood of fixation of deleterious mutations and decreasing that of beneficial mutations."
You missed the point of the article you were referring to. I googled a large chunk of your post and it brought me to this site:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597....

The point Lynch was making was that Natural Selection alone does not account for all of evolution. Other "Non-adaptive" factors are involved, such as random mutations.

From the above link:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution."

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116290 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
When you have distinctive genomes, existing data, as it were, to use a phrase Dawkins uses a lot, "as it were", variable expression is not evolution.
[EDITED FOR BREVITY] Of course, many other eukaryotes are capable of producing a few different cell types, but the same is true for prokaryotes, some of which produce radically different cell morphologies.
Nevertheless, King (45) states that “this historical predisposition of eukaryotes to the unicellular lifestyle begs the question of what selective advantages might have been conferred by the transition to multicellularity;” and Jacob (46) argues that “it is natural selection that gives direction to changes, orients chance, and slowly, progressively produces more complex structures, new organs, and new species.” The vast majority of biologists almost certainly agree with such statements."
BUT WHERE IS THE DIRECT SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE ASSUMPTION THAT COMPLEXITY IS ROOTED IN ADAPTIVE PROCESSES?(My emphasis)
"But where is the direct supportive evidence for the assumption that complexity is rooted in adaptive processes? No existing observations support such a claim, and given the massive global dominance of unicellular species over multicellular eukaryotes, both in terms of species richness and numbers of individuals, if there is an advantage of organismal complexity, one can only marvel at the inability of natural selection to promote it. Multicellular species experience reduced population sizes, reduced recombination rates, and increased deleterious mutation rates, all of which diminish the efficiency of selection (13). It may be no coincidence that such species also have substantially higher extinction rates than do unicellular taxa (47, 48)."
Michael Lynch, "The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity", PNAS, May 15, 2007, Vol 104, Suppl 1.
He also states in Table 1 in this same paper in realtion to natural selection being a directional force in gaining complexity:
"There is no evidence at any level of biological organization that natural selection is a directional force encouraging complexity. In contrast, substantial evidence exists that a reduction in the efficiency of selection drives the evolution of genomic complexity."
In relation to genetic drift, also Table 1:
"By reducing the efficiency of selection, random genetic drift imposes a high degree of directionality on evolution by increasing the likelihood of fixation of deleterious mutations and decreasing that of beneficial mutations."
You missed the point of the article you were referring to. I googled a large chunk of your post and it brought me to this site:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597....

The point Lynch was making was that Natural Selection alone does not account for all of evolution. Other "Non-adaptive" factors are involved, such as random mutations.

From the above link:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution."

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116291 Feb 7, 2013
OOPS! Double post. Sorry.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116292 Feb 7, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed the point of the article you were referring to. I googled a large chunk of your post and it brought me to this site:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8597....
The point Lynch was making was that Natural Selection alone does not account for all of evolution. Other "Non-adaptive" factors are involved, such as random mutations.
From the above link:
"First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (6) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection, for which an elaborate theory in terms of genotype frequencies now exists (10, 11). The remaining three evolutionary forces are nonadaptive in the sense that they are not a function of the fitness properties of individuals: mutation is the ultimate source of variation on which natural selection acts, recombination assorts variation within and among chromosomes, and genetic drift ensures that gene frequencies will deviate a bit from generation to generation independent of other forces. Given the century of work devoted to the study of evolution, it is reasonable to conclude that these four broad classes encompass all of the fundamental forces of evolution."

So you are saying the Russ was quotemining, a tactic that is disingenuous at best and more likely just dishonest. Is that correct?

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116293 Feb 7, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I am using the word species as it is normally used. Dogs are all one species but come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes but they can all still produce offspring and they all share common characteristics that we collectively define as the that species. That is the most specific category of life. The next is genus. Two different genuses cannot produces viable vertile offspring but still share much of the same characteristics of which we collectively define it. There is virtually unlimited genetic variation possible within a species with regards to size, shape, color, etc. For example, no two humans share the exact same fingerprint, facial features, eye pattern, or DNA. So this is a perfectly valid definition based on our current knowledge.
And now briefly, I am basing my rule on what is routinely observed and not what is speculated to fit the TOE. Gradualism and the slow fossilization of bones is generally not accepted by anyone therefore there really is no geologic column of fossils that represent vast eons of time and by deduction, no macroevolution. In order for a fossil to form, the creature must be quickly buried in mud under pressure. The old idea that an animal dies and its lies out in the sun and rain with all the decomposers and regardless of what we routinely observe that there is basically nothig left after a few days, the animals is slowly covered by dirt and leaves day after day, year after year, for thousands and millions of years and finally becomes fossilized. And then a framework whereby the fossil pattern found was used to create the framework of a theory is much weaker - and circular - than what is routinely observed. Plus the fact that there are as many or more out of place fossils than evolutionary ones. Plus the fact that there are so many living fossils. Fossils of creatures in very old layers that look just like their living counterparts. Got to go to work.
The fossil record is widely recognized. Dating methods include multiple soil samples all around the specimen. Fossils found in mudslides or in shallow quicksand are not that difficult to date. The vast majority of scientists in archaeology and geology would not agree with you.

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) 15 min DanFromSmithville 20,582
News Techs4Biz Announces Pervidi Version 6 Including... (Jul '13) Thu Roger Chan 5
How can I print out HTC phone text messages? Thu trwer 8
[iTunes Data Recovery] How to Recover Notes fro... (May '13) Wed Nelson 24
Bitcoin News Wed enjoybitcoins 1
News Sunseeker Energy Holding AG and Nations Roof Pl... (Sep '09) Tue amed20 85
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) Tue nanoanomaly 7,156
More from around the web