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.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117471 Feb 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know? You haven't examined all of the evidence. You have categorically rejected it because of your atheistic religion. The "mountains of scientific evidence" for evolution of which you speak. There is not a shred of actual experimental scientific evidence that evolution has occurred or could occur. You have been duped by intellectual elites.
No, I haven't. That is what peer review is for.

And atheists never reject evidence. Atheism is not a religion, but they do have general beliefs. Actually some don't care about evolution, they have their own reason for rejecting the bullshit of religion.

Once again, until you show a genuine interest in learning I will simply point out how you are an idiot to anyone who understands science.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117472 Feb 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you fail again. You keep demonstrating that you have no understanding of science. A well tested and accepted theory, like the theory of evolution, is at the top of the hierarchy of all scientific ideas. It outranks laws, hypotheses and mere facts.
How much fail are you full of tonight?
When do you want to start to learn?
You're living in fantasyland. Evolution is not a universally accepted scientific theory. You apparently go with the flow.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117473 Feb 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, all the ENCODE project showed is that more of the DNA in the genome was coding that was previously thought. Some the DNA they found was minimally coding at best.
First off there was no "junk DNA paradigm" so it cannot fail. A nonexistent object cannot fail. Second the OP misunderstood the article he linked. It never said what he claimed it to. You might have noticed, he ran away after being defeated many many times over.
. Why do you keep fixating on coding vs non-coding? Prior to the human genome project, prominent evolutionists were claiming that 98% of human DNA was nonfunctional and that evolution predicted this. That. "Prediction" has failed miserably. For example, University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,

"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 

Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81

  Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller wrote, 

"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design.... In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival." 

"Life's Grand Design," Technology Review, February/March 1994

Now evolutionists are trying to disavow themselves or prior predictions, and you're buying into it. You're saying that no junk DNA paradigm existed, when for three decades it was used as evidence for NDT.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117474 Feb 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You're living in fantasyland. Evolution is not a universally accepted scientific theory. You apparently go with the flow.
In the world of science it is so close to being universally accepted that the exceptions can be attributed to the fringe element that you find in any part of society.

Do you want numbers?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117475 Feb 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Why do you keep fixating on coding vs non-coding? Prior to the human genome project, prominent evolutionists were claiming that 98% of human DNA was nonfunctional and that evolution predicted this. That. "Prediction" has failed miserably. For example, University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
  Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller wrote, 
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design.... In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival." 
"Life's Grand Design," Technology Review, February/March 1994
Now evolutionists are trying to disavow themselves or prior predictions, and you're buying into it. You're saying that no junk DNA paradigm existed, when for three decades it was used as evidence for NDT.
None of those claims have been overturned by project ENCODE. You and your other creatard friends clearly misread the article.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117476 Feb 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
In the world of science it is so close to being universally accepted that the exceptions can be attributed to the fringe element that you find in any part of society.
Do you want numbers?
Yes, give me the numbers.
HTS

Williston, ND

#117477 Feb 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
None of those claims have been overturned by project ENCODE. You and your other creatard friends clearly misread the article.
Nice dodge.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117478 Feb 15, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on Chimney, I can't believe you don't even have an opinion on the matter. Is it really true, that your true and honest answer is "I don't know"? Or are you stubbornly being politically correct? Come on Man, we've been at this for a long time now.
No, I will argue reasonably with you until you start trotting out these mindless and inaccurate bromides. "Evolutionists start with the premise that nothing + nothing = everything" is one such bromide.

Now, you want my OPINION on the origins of Everything? I do not know. But on the other hand there are some things I can rule out, so that is a start.

Based on the evidence in nature, I can rule out with a large degree of certainty, the literal Biblical version of events. I can also, for similar reasons, rule out the ancient Greek, the Chinese, the Maori, whatever. We can be pretty certain that no ancient culture had a clue and so developed mythologies. In many cases these were poetic and beautiful and may even have embedded some wisdom about ourselves and the human condition.

The story of Adam and Eve - the point in time when hominids developed to a point of really understanding their own mortality and thus "knowing death", which also corresponded to the first understandings in terms of abstract knowledge...well, as a poetic metaphor, its powerful. As science or history, its pure bunkum. Very little in Genesis tallies up with observable reality.

On the other hand, as one option, I cannot rule out a Deity. Nor can I define one, meaning the proposition is untestable and virtually meaningless.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117479 Feb 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Nice dodge.
Really? Are you that idiotic that you do not know what a dodge is?

That was not a dodge. I pointed out that you read the article incorrectly and were wrong.

Are you out to prove to everyone that you are an idiot. Not only scientifically but linguistically too?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117480 Feb 15, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, give me the numbers.
Okay, Wiki is very handy for questions like this.
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ...(out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists)... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[31] pseudoscience,[32][33] or junk science.[34][35] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[36] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[37] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...

Please note, that to get %5 of all scientists accepting creationism they had to include sciences outside of biology. In biology acceptance is over 99%. In other words to get 5% creationists they had to go to sciences that had no clue about evolution.

You are in the fringe. There is no doubt about it.

No creation "scientist" has ever produced anything of note using creation "science".

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#117481 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>. Why do you keep fixating on coding vs non-coding? Prior to the human genome project, prominent evolutionists were claiming that 98% of human DNA was nonfunctional and that evolution predicted this. That. "Prediction" has failed miserably. For example, University of Chicago geneticist Dr. Jerry A. Coyne offered philosophical arguments to defend his conclusion that human DNA was not intelligently designed. These arguments were founded on the existence of perceived worthless segments of genetic code. In defending evolution, he wrote,
"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution... we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed. These are called pseudogenes... the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply. Indeed, our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" 
Coyne, Dr. Jerry, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81
  Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller wrote, 
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design.... In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival." 
"Life's Grand Design," Technology Review, February/March 1994
Now evolutionists are trying to disavow themselves or prior predictions, and you're buying into it. You're saying that no junk DNA paradigm existed, when for three decades it was used as evidence for NDT.
Show me a single scientific paper that ever made 98% junk a "prediction" of evolution. What rubbish. The first time I ever heard of junk DNA, I wondered why natural selection had not weeded it out.

But the point was only this - when a large portion of the DNA was found to be non functional or minimally functional, evolution could "handle it" as a theory, while intelligent design could not. Why would an intelligent designer throw in so much useless junk? This does not make junk a prediction of evolution or necessary to evolution though.

As it is, even ENCODE predicts that only about 20% of the DNA is likely to be usefully functional. And its still the case that evolution can handle that range - or any range, depending on how strong selection pressure against the junk is - while design cannot explain it at all, or at least has failed to until now.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117483 Feb 16, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
While you're at it, ask for intelligence and logic as well.
No thanks
I am fine as I am....

If I had more brains, let's say half a brain...

Why...I'd be an evolutionist!

Fancy that...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#117484 Feb 16, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Morons always pretend to know something, but never prove such.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually when we demonstrate our claims you only dismiss it by claiming it's all part of the evil worldwide atheist Darwinist evolutionist Jewish conspiracy. But you never prove such.
Here's the Dude accepting he is a moron....

Ha ha

Some TRUTH finally

Since: Aug 07

North Miami Beach, FL

#117485 Feb 16, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Now, you want my OPINION on the origins of Everything? I do not know. But on the other hand there are some things I can rule out, so that is a start.
It is not meaningless. Your opinion is very important. I am not interested in hearing the "official party line" as I've heard that a million times. Your true and honest opinion is really the only thing that matters. I know what it says in the secular text books.

You know what I believe. I believe 100% that God created the universe as it written in the Bible. Of course I don't know exactly how He did it. He has always existed and comes from another universe that we are not aware of. He created this universe with His energy and matter and know how. He created this universe of which we are a part of so this one is all we know. So I have an origin and an explanation for where we come from. All matter, energy, and space was created by God who always existed.

So what am I asking? I am asking you to tell me what you believe the origin of this universe is. All the space, matter, and energy and all the billions of galaxies and stars; time and space, matter and energy, from the beginning of time. If you want, back before life began, back to the big bang, back to the time what all space, time, matter, and energy were all contained in a signularity a million times smaller than the head of a pin. You can also believe that if you want. But where did that pinpoint come from?

Did even that always exist? Never mind all the complications such as how the galaxies got to spinning or how the planets got their rotations or how all the chemicals formed and got organized enough for life to begin. Where did the pinpoint come from in the first place?

Never mind if you don't think the Earth is the center of this universe. What is important is what you really believe about that pinpoint and whether there was any purpose behind it. In other words, was there any thought process involved? Was there any planning or purpose or design or intelligence involved in the creation of this universe?

Again, or me, of course this is easy and satisfying. God created the universe. Of course the details are equally as difficult for me as it is for you but at least I have a logical answer for the biggest question of all. I know where I came from. I was made. Life only comes from life. Cells only come from cells. The first cells were made.

I just have a very hard time accepting your, "I don't know". That is not an opinion, that is you just telling me what the current state of the science is but I already know that. When you do that, it is insulting really. Like I told Kong, you are not typing out peer-reviewed research or anything. Surely you must be able to think for yourself. You people seem to act as though there is a some panel of evolutionist judges or examiners watching you to see if you break any rules or something. Just tell me the truth damn it.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#117486 Feb 16, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not meaningless. Your opinion is very important. I am not interested in hearing the "official party line" as I've heard that a million times. Your true and honest opinion is really the only thing that matters. I know what it says in the secular text books.
You know what I believe. I believe 100% that God created the universe as it written in the Bible. Of course I don't know exactly how He did it. He has always existed and comes from another universe that we are not aware of. He created this universe with His energy and matter and know how. He created this universe of which we are a part of so this one is all we know. So I have an origin and an explanation for where we come from. All matter, energy, and space was created by God who always existed.
So what am I asking? I am asking you to tell me what you believe the origin of this universe is. All the space, matter, and energy and all the billions of galaxies and stars; time and space, matter and energy, from the beginning of time. If you want, back before life began, back to the big bang, back to the time what all space, time, matter, and energy were all contained in a signularity a million times smaller than the head of a pin. You can also believe that if you want. But where did that pinpoint come from?
Did even that always exist? Never mind all the complications such as how the galaxies got to spinning or how the planets got their rotations or how all the chemicals formed and got organized enough for life to begin. Where did the pinpoint come from in the first place?
Never mind if you don't think the Earth is the center of this universe. What is important is what you really believe about that pinpoint and whether there was any purpose behind it. In other words, was there any thought process involved? Was there any planning or purpose or design or intelligence involved in the creation of this universe?
Again, or me, of course this is easy and satisfying. God created the universe. Of course the details are equally as difficult for me as it is for you but at least I have a logical answer for the biggest question of all. I know where I came from. I was made. Life only comes from life. Cells only come from cells. The first cells were made.
I just have a very hard time accepting your, "I don't know". That is not an opinion, that is you just telling me what the current state of the science is but I already know that. When you do that, it is insulting really. Like I told Kong, you are not typing out peer-reviewed research or anything. Surely you must be able to think for yourself. You people seem to act as though there is a some panel of evolutionist judges or examiners watching you to see if you break any rules or something. Just tell me the truth damn it.
Question: "How and why did the Universe begin?"

Rational Person: "I don't know how and why."

Urban Cowboy: "God did it, but I don't know how and why."

Yep. That clears it up.
One way or another

United States

#117487 Feb 16, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Here's the Dude accepting he is a moron....
Ha ha
Some TRUTH finally
Yea, the Evo children are kinda shy like that.
One way or another

United States

#117488 Feb 16, 2013
Question: "How and why did the Universe begin?"

Atheist or evolutionist---we all proofed into existence from nothing. The Evo fairy musta done it.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117489 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Complete BS. Non-coding does not mean "non-functional". Your entire junk DNA paradigm has crashed.

Snicker.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117490 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Dude, regardless of how much you imagine that evolutionary theory is "peer-reviewed", you have yet to produce a single paper that scientifically demonstrates that any proposed mechanism of evolution is possible. Peer-reviewed bedtime stores are not science.

Each of the mechanisms of evolution are peer reviewed by, at least hundreds of articles.

You might want to learn how to use pubmed.com so you can check your ideas before you say ignorant things like this.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> If you are seriously interested in the level of "peer review" that exists in the evo world, consider the history of the infamous Ernst Haeckle and his drawings that have been propagated in biology textbooks for over a century after they were proven fraudulent. You call that "peer review"? What a joke.....

Actually, peer review suggest that Haeckle was more right than wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_t...

"Darwin's view, that early embryonic stages are similar to the same embryonic stage of related species but not to the adult stages of these species, has been confirmed by modern evolutionary developmental biology."

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#117491 Feb 16, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You have been zealously evo-babbling on this forum for months, and have yet to "demonstrate" anything. Your incessant parroting of bedtime stories isn't fooling anyone.

You are so out that all you do is parrot your little disclaimer.

We have consistently provided facts. You have consistently provided ignorance and incredulity.

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 SpaceX failure tests its bold agenda 7 min SpaceBlues 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min Brian_G 19,796
News Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 3 hr Earthling-1 28,236
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 9 hr shinningelectr0n 6,590
News Researchers to test MS patients with type of st... 12 hr FEAR MONGERING 4
News Sisters from El Paso win top honors at Internat... 13 hr I Hate The French 1
News Social and SEO Work Better Together Sat oliviarousseff 2
More from around the web