Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179628 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.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124501 Mar 21, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep - Creation.com is a legit scientific source - you are absolutely right to quote it.
From your last link
'Across the ocean, the tiny island of Staff, off the west coast of Scotland (near Mull and Iona), has similar rock outcrops.1,2 It is home to Fingal’s Cave (pictured). According to local folklore, the Irish giant Finn MacCool built the causeway so he could cross the sea to Scotland and do battle with his rival giant, Finn Gall.3 Tourist interpretive centres usually incorporate folk legends into their literature but are loath to present the true biblical perspective.'
Get a grip !!!!
That's nice

What's your point?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#124502 Mar 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
It is always fun to go to creatard.com for a few good laughs. It is amazing how idiotically wrong they are about science. Not only their own conclusions but what they claim other scientists believe.
The only chance to "win" an argument is to build a strawman of others beliefs and try to argue against that.
Forget all that garbage right now. Tow words that cause creatards to soil their pants with idiocy:
Incised meanders.
How's that an issue?
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124503 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice
What's your point?
That you still quote Creation.com as a legit scientific source - even though it includes crap like I referenced.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#124504 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that an issue?
Let me guess...

You will thank me for the free plug (don't get count it as positive advertising)

You will say Creation.com is reputable , even though it dismisses all evidence that is contrary to its 'SCIENCE RACIST BIGOTRY' as the bible has never been proved wrong.

Descend into puerile hand-waving

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#124505 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see his complete speech then
Here's what I linked and its not from creation.com
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-cr...
"In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin's and Alfred Russel Wallace's evolutionary theories.
The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss. "
But naturally, creation.com has some scathing things to say as well...
That was an *OPINION* piece by Philip Skell -- who is a CHEMIST. Not a BIOchemist, mind you.

He is also a Creationist with an axe to grind with respect to anything that threatens his view of a LITERAL, INERRANT interpretation of the Bible.

You know....kind of like.....YOU.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124507 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see his complete speech then
Here's what I linked and its not from creation.com
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-cr...
"In 1942, Nobel Laureate Ernst Chain wrote that his discovery of penicillin (with Howard Florey and Alexander Fleming) and the development of bacterial resistance to that antibiotic owed nothing to Darwin's and Alfred Russel Wallace's evolutionary theories.
The same can be said about a variety of other 20th-century findings: the discovery of the structure of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; new surgeries; and other developments.
Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss. "
But naturally, creation.com has some scathing things to say as well...
----------
So do tell
How does evolution help science?
You must be more specific. Of course it helps find new vaccines in medicine these days. Understanding geology, which is not evolution but is a related science is extremely helpful to you. You could not drive to work, nor would you have anything to drive to work to in without geology.

And no, cratard.com has some idiotic things to say.

You were caught in another quote mine retard. That is a form of lying. You better start recanting all of your lies now. Otherwise you will have a whole lot of sins that you did not admit to before you die. And you know what that means.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#124508 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How's that an issue?
Really, oh wait. you already admitted that you are a total retard about geology.

YEC's cannot explain incised meanders.

Of course they cannot explain the fossil record either so who knows how much poop they actually have in their shorts.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124509 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Chimney, believe me...I've heard all of your canned rhetoric...
Atheists regurgitate it ad nauseum, every time thinking they're coming up with something original.
The only proper way to utilize science is as a tool... not as a pretense to justify your religion.
Candid acknowledgement of your profound ignorance would be helpful.
You don't understand the difference between conjecture and proof.
Evolution is not observed... It is IMAGINED.
dimwit.

If yo go back to the original claim by UC, it was merely whether there was any validity at all selecting a partner based on perceivable attributes. i.e. whether there was any correlation between what you can sense - health, vitality, strength, intelligence, demeanor, smell, symmetry, beauty...and genetic health.

And the reality is that if there is ANY correlation between ANY of these traits and genetic fitness, then OF COURSE there is. Meaning selection based on these is going to be of some value.

Are you seriously trying to claim that this is wild evolutionary conjecture? Its true regardless of evolution.

What utter rubbish you spout. If US's claim was true, then all principles of animal husbandry - which goes back thousands of years before any evolution theory - would be false as well.

Its just lunatic. And your cut-and-paste creatard responses are just making you look stupid. You are not even looking at the issue, merely taking every chance you can to spout your "evolution is atheism" nonsense.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124510 Mar 21, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How was flood geology debunked before Darwin?
hahahha!

Even Leonardo da Vinci debunked it by LOOKING at the way shells were placed in the rocks in the Italian hills. 500 years ago.

Geologists looking at patterns of deposition etc had killed YEC before Darwin was even born. Nobody outside the local parish took YEC seriously. Nor do today.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124511 Mar 21, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I am merely looking at this objectively.
Evolution is nothing more than a huge collection of stories founded on metaphysical assumptions.
You can't experimentally demonstrate that any of your proposed mechanisms are possible.
If Lenski is the best you can come up with, you're pretty desperate. His 20 year experiment does not prove that man evolved from a microbe.
Metaphysics according to HTS:

1. exponential reproduction with imperfect heredity OBSERVED
2. competition for finite resources OBSERVED
3. differential survival rates based on variation OBSERVED

If you think that is metaphysical, then you think everything beyond the tip of your nose is metaphysical.

We also have:

1. changes in the fossil record through the strata consistent with evolutionary predictions OBSERVED
2. visible changes in species today in response to environmental changes OBSERVED
3. beneficial mutations resulting in improved survival OBSERVED
4. the nested hierarchy of variation preserved in the genome OBSERVED

No metaphysics. Just science.
Russell

Aranda, Australia

#124512 Mar 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Metaphysics according to HTS:
1. exponential reproduction with imperfect heredity OBSERVED
2. competition for finite resources OBSERVED
3. differential survival rates based on variation OBSERVED
If you think that is metaphysical, then you think everything beyond the tip of your nose is metaphysical.
We also have:
1. changes in the fossil record through the strata consistent with evolutionary predictions OBSERVED
2. visible changes in species today in response to environmental changes OBSERVED
3. beneficial mutations resulting in improved survival OBSERVED
4. the nested hierarchy of variation preserved in the genome OBSERVED
No metaphysics. Just science.
Hey

What are these myriad evidences to which you refer?

Yesterday there was nothing

Today

there's all this evidence.....

What is it?

Do fill me in.....

To what changes do you refer in the fossil record?

I hate missing stuff

Looks like I've missed heaps

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124513 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
I hate missing stuff
Looks like I've missed heaps
Such as the last two centuries of science.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124514 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
To what changes do you refer in the fossil record?
You have to be kidding.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#124515 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey
What are these myriad evidences to which you refer?
Yesterday there was nothing
Today
there's all this evidence.....
What is it?
Do fill me in.....
To what changes do you refer in the fossil record?
Which of the above 3 preconditions for evolution, and which of the 4 lines of evidence, all of which I claim are observed, are not in fact observed, Russell?

And are you seriously trying to claim that the fossil record does NOT change from early strata to late? According to creationism, we shoud be just as likely to find a mouse or a tyrannosaur in the Permian. We never do.

There is a succession consistent with evolution but not explained at all by any creationist attempts, which are laughable. Or perhaps YOU can explain why we find no giant ground sloths at the lower levels where we find velociraptors. And we find no flowering plants until the mid cretaceious, long after whole ages of archosaurs, brontosaur types, mammal like reptiles, and giant amphibians have all long disappeared, but not a single horse, elephant, ape, or sparrow, is yet to be found. Altitude fails. Speed fails. Ability to hold their breath fails. Creationism fails.

On the other hand, evolution easily explains what is observed. As does a 4.6 billion year old earth.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#124516 Mar 22, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you should have said "the majority of mutations that get fixed in the population", i.e. successfully spread. Your phrasing could lead to the conclusion that you think most mutations that occur in the genome are beneficial...when we know that is not the case. I am sure you do too. But HTS will jump on any little error he can...and they are of course well schooled in the quote-mine, if nothing else.
I sort of take your point of including “successful”. For a mutation to be termed successful is has allowed an organism to survive in the current environment

Most mutation are effectively neutral or recessive they are neither harmful nor beneficial. Some non beneficial mutations however can be “successful” in ways totally opposed to logic.

Take antibiotic resistance in bacteria, a mutation that is totally unsuccessful, even deadly for us, yet it is extremely successful to the MRSA, CD, E.coli and several other bacteria.

It also works the other way, the resistance to malaria of those with sickle cell anaemia has saved millions of lives throughout the ages, at the cost of seriously reduced life expectancy and several complications to health throughout life

We and several billion species (including micro organisms) have survived whether the various mutations are beneficial or not. Is the chain of mutations that has brought us to the 21st century successful? Considering some of the alternatives I would suggest they were.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#124517 Mar 22, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey
What are these myriad evidences to which you refer?
Yesterday there was nothing
Today
there's all this evidence.....
What is it?
Do fill me in.....
To what changes do you refer in the fossil record?
I hate missing stuff
Looks like I've missed heaps
Heaps indeed. It's all been mentioned many times in this thread. Why don't you go back and read it? Even if we spoon-feed it to you, you won't open the hangar for the airplane to land.

Just open up and let it in. Like this: http://youtu.be/O5GVPgiRMEI
Elohim

Branford, CT

#124518 Mar 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Chimney, believe me...I've heard all of your canned rhetoric...
Atheists regurgitate it ad nauseum, every time thinking they're coming up with something original.
The only proper way to utilize science is as a tool... not as a pretense to justify your religion.
Candid acknowledgement of your profound ignorance would be helpful.
You don't understand the difference between conjecture and proof.
Evolution is not observed... It is IMAGINED.
Another fine example of projection!
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124519 Mar 22, 2013
The evolutionary paradigm ultimately relies on the hope that DNA is actually pixie dust. A complex code cannot be randomly changed to result in anything purposeful. It is believed by atheists that random substitutions in code can occur and that all of these changes will get thrown into a pool and result in every increasing complexities. Such a belief requires the assignment of properties to pure chemistry that have never been proven to exist.

My biggest hangup with evolution is the idea that mutations can result in complexity. That is clearly impossible with coded information such as digital computer code. Some of you athesits out there are insisting that DNA is not a "code" but a "recipe". Who or what is following the recipe? In order for evolution to actually work, there would need to be some mystical force that is directing all of those mutations to result in something worthwhile.

“Don't get me started”

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#124520 Mar 22, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists were in darkness for centuries prior to the enlightenment which occurred from the bosom of Christianity. Study history. Atheism has contributed NOTHING to science or world progress.
The enlightenment was brought about by scientists and philosophers in a movement to replace the authority of the church to determine the ownership of the truth. Most were atheists, agnostics or deists. The enlightenment brought about the new concept that the facts of reality should speak for themselves rather than allowing the church to determine what is truth and what is false.

The enlightenment was a reaction against mindless parroting of chruch dogma.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#124521 Mar 22, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The enlightenment was brought about by scientists and philosophers in a movement to replace the authority of the church to determine the ownership of the truth. Most were atheists, agnostics or deists. The enlightenment brought about the new concept that the facts of reality should speak for themselves rather than allowing the church to determine what is truth and what is false.
The enlightenment was a reaction against mindless parroting of chruch dogma.
The Church had become corrupted. The enlightenment was an attempt to return to the original teachings of Jesus. It was not a movement to atheism. Tell me how many great atheistic scientists lived during the enlightenment...

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) 7 min Chimney1 31,158
News NextEra Hawaiian Electric Pursuit Dims as Oncor... 1 hr Solarman 1
News EU wants quota of European films on providers l... 4 hr mao-the-dong 1
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 8 hr SoE 10,373
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 18 hr Eagle 12 9,718
Tips to Convert iTunes M4B Audiobook to MP3 (Mar '15) 18 hr shanshuihuaa 4
News Serbia shocked by UEFA decision to accept Kosovo 19 hr Osmius 17
More from around the web