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.

susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126567 Apr 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
When Pegasus flies up your butt, I doubt you will call that mythology either. Fortunately, the odds of either of them occurring are extremely miniscule and approximately equal.
It is equally unlikely the universe could exist on its own with even the slightest variation in composition. Most prophecies have already been fulfilled, the first parts up until VWD Day and that could happen at any time. The biggest prophecy in the bible or single event is the photographs Adam took and sold to the publicizers for $7.50 paid in quarters 29 years ago. Then Adam, Matthew and Luke hung themselves at ATO frat house (of brothers) Alpha Tao Omega. Zechariah 11

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#126568 Apr 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go again. The idiotic myth that an intermediate is a "half formed" creature, an incomplete creature.
Not evolution, buddy, not even close. Just another exceedingly silly straw man.
Want to see some real straw man. Want some. Want some.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#126569 Apr 8, 2013
Did you know that some monastic groups pre date the RCC by millions of years?

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#126570 Apr 8, 2013
Evolutionary regression kids, haven"t you read the dead sea scrolls.

Well Mary Magdalene wrote several books one in particular interest here.

She disposed death and believed that people that were sinners that were subjected to Christian burial would crawl away as worms.

Hinduism too argues the case that people will regress into animals, have you read Hinduya Kush's book eternal flame. He believes that most pen are coming back a dirty dogs, filthy pigs, and wicked jackals.

“GOD ALMIGHTY”

Since: Aug 12

Ilford, UK

#126571 Apr 8, 2013
most people not pen ed.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126572 Apr 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really, even without a reversed hallux?
Creatards have been on both sides on this particular species which makes it a perfect transitional fossil.
So
A perching, flying bird with feathers is your transitional to perching flying birds with feathers

Are things so very desperate in evo-world?

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2009/11/02/23708...

----------

I personally think Archaeoraptor is a better transitional....

Dino with feathers!

Wow...

Just one small confounding factor.........

Tsk tsk...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126573 Apr 8, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Birds have teeth? Really?
Yes
Ever heard of an "egg tooth"?

Check out Greylag Goose tomia

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-kU9tX5aKSc...

http://webecoist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/...

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/termi...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126574 Apr 8, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
OK

You did say something...

What was it again...?

It made no impression whatsoever
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#126575 Apr 8, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever notice that all birds have reptilian scales on their feet? Funny that, huh?
Yes

I giggle about that all the time...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126576 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So
A perching, flying bird with feathers is your transitional to perching flying birds with feathers
Are things so very desperate in evo-world?
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2009/11/02/23708...
----------
I personally think Archaeoraptor is a better transitional....
Dino with feathers!
Wow...
Just one small confounding factor.........
Tsk tsk...
You are projecting your own desperation and panic.

Not you, but other creatards have argued in the past that because archeopteryx had a reversed hallux that it definitely was a bird and was not related to dinosaurs. Now we know that it does not have a reversed hallux. Of course the neat thing about transitionals is that they are hard to place.

Archeopteryx is an excellent transitional species whether it is called a bird or a dinosaur. Creationists can't stand that and have to stick with one or the other.

And as I said, now it seems to be more of a dinosaur than a bird:

http://www.science20.com/between_death_and_da...
so sad

Central City, KY

#126577 Apr 8, 2013
NO!!!!!
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#126578 Apr 8, 2013
Russell wrote:
An egg tooth is not the same as mandibular and maxillary teeth.

Are teeth a characteristic of birds?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#126579 Apr 9, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
An egg tooth is not the same as mandibular and maxillary teeth.
Are teeth a characteristic of birds?
And tomia are not teeth.

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#126580 Apr 9, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you DID say those experiments debunked Darwin. I will take your backtracking as an apology for an extravagant claim.------
Sorry mate, but your claim that the nested hierarchy is a "one trick pony of no consequence" merely reminds me that no only do you NOT understand it, or its importance, but you have deliberately avoided gaining that understanding. To me that is a conscious avoidance effort because you know that its devastating to your case.
It is MERELY the only structure compatible with common descent and furthermore, its existence in the fossil record and the genome has only ever been explained rationally by common descent. Knowing its that crucial, you prefer to trivialise it rather than try to understand it. And don;t tell me you DO understand it. I know that is false or you would not have made such clunkers as claiming that modern amphibian markers should be more like fish markers than mammal markers etc. Nothing could be more wrong, and more revealing of your ignorance. And its used in peer reviewed research all the time.
Basically, I didn't backtrack. I meant to say it debunked AC although I could have been clearer. Now nested hierarchy is nothing more than saying similar things look the same. It is simply describing and defining things the way they actually are in nature which doesn't prove anything. All you've accomplished by labeling nested hierarchies is describing nature the way it actually is. This does not prove macroevolution anymore than it does creation.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#126581 Apr 9, 2013
the dark lord wrote:
Evolutionary regression kids, haven"t you read the dead sea scrolls.
Well Mary Magdalene wrote several books one in particular interest here.
She disposed death and believed that people that were sinners that were subjected to Christian burial would crawl away as worms.
Hinduism too argues the case that people will regress into animals, have you read Hinduya Kush's book eternal flame. He believes that most pen are coming back a dirty dogs, filthy pigs, and wicked jackals.
Reincarnation is a fact but humans can only come back as humans, they have a human spirit. You also can only be reincarnated if you went to heaven, if you went to hell you're history, angels have a choice. Some people have been sent back, like Satan (Adam) and Lucifer (Jesus), they both have a role to play in the end times, so their spirits were preserved.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126582 Apr 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Now nested hierarchy is nothing more than saying similar things look the same.
Not saying that at all. NH explain WHY they are similar and in what progression they are similar.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/I...

Excerpt:

Nested Hierarchies

Common ancestry is conspicuous.

Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies—rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.

In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits.

Humans and chimpanzees are united by many shared inherited traits (such as 98.7% of their DNA). But at a more inclusive level of life’s hierarchy, we share a smaller set of inherited traits in common with all primates. More inclusive still, we share traits in common with other mammals, other vertebrates, other animals. At the most inclusive level, we sit alongside sponges, petunias, diatoms and bacteria in a very large “box” entitled: living organisms.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/...

Phylogenies trace patterns of shared ancestry between lineages. Each lineage has a part of its history that is unique to it alone and parts that are shared with other lineages.

Similarly, each lineage has ancestors that are unique to that lineage and ancestors that are shared with other lineages—common ancestors.

http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Nested_Hierarch...

"Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates.

Life shows a clear nested hierarchy, at least with regards to multicellular organisms. An animal that produces milk (Mammals), will also have hair, have four limbs, be endothermic (warmblooded) plus possess many other characteristics. Why should this be? Why do no other animals or plants produce milk? Why do no mammals have four limbs plus a pair of wings, like the Pegasus or angels? This fits easily with the idea of common descent, but is not what would be expected from special creation (although it isn't completely at odds with creation either, as the creator(s) could create life in any configuration imaginable).
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
All you've accomplished by labeling nested hierarchies is describing nature the way it actually is.
No, it's a description of the PROGRESSION fossils or DNA took over a LONG PERIOD OF TIME -- i.e. their EVOLUTION.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126583 Apr 9, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Greece and Greeks produced Apollo not the other way around. The Lord created the nation of Israel and the Jews not the other way around.
The problem for you is that you "KNOW" the latter only because you read the books written by men as they "produced" the myth of Israel being GOd;s chosen people, etc.

What a shock! An ancient people claiming that their God is the one and only God and their people happens to be the one, FAVORITE people of this God.

That you apparently cannot see through this obvious ruse says a lot about you.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126584 Apr 9, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you mean the puzzle of dino soft tissues?
They weren't "soft" until the crystallized, rock hard "tissue' was rehydrated.

And yes, we now know that under certain highly unusual circumstances, some tissue can be preserved, sort of.

Not a problem for evolution at all.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126585 Apr 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's quite the opposite. We have everything and you have nothing. Every fossil ever found made its first appearance fully formed.
This is say-nothing bullshit, and even YOU must realize that.

Yes, each individual fossil is itself and can be said, in a weird, say-nothing way, to be "fully-formed" in the same way that YOU are"fully-formed" and I am "fully-formed."

The question is Where does that fossil fit into the record of fossils earlier and later than it? And the answer is ALWAYS "into nested hierarchies, as predicted by the theory of Evolution."

Bummer for you Christian guys working your agenda.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#126586 Apr 9, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why else do you not see "nested hierarchy" used as evidence in peer-reviewed research?
.
Seen all the time, whether the actual words "nested hierarchy" are used in the individual cases. That's what they are TALKING about.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What you really need is fossils of direct ancestors for all plants or animals;
Never gonna get ALL fossils for all plants and animals. That isn't the way fossilization works, as I'm sure you know well, otherwise you wouldn't MAKE that unreasonable suggestion.

But we don't NEED ALL the examples to demonstrate a logical, believable progression. It's like we have photos taken every minute of someone walking from New York to Los Angeles, more than sufficient to establish the walker's progression from one endpoint to another -- pictures of the walker at famous landmarks along the way, perhaps holding up that day;s newspaper as he walks, etc.

Your response, which is a pathetic one really, is to claim we cannot prove he walked from NY to LA unless we have a complete unbroken film record of the entire journey.

Not possible and also not needed.

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
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 39 min doug 6,617
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr MikeF 19,806
Free Rip DVD Movies to HTC One M9 Hima 9 hr Teddy_6 1
How to print text messages from android smart p... (Aug '14) 10 hr Beafftt 17
da dongle j2534 auto scan tool 10 hr shawnbem 1
News Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 14 hr Acolyte 28,239
How to recover deleted videos from digital camc... 16 hr Ashley 4
More from around the web