Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#135315 Jun 12, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is suggesting teaching Creationism as fact. Until it can be disproven, and the majority of Americans still claim to believe in God, it should certainly be taught as one possible worldview!
Any other " conversation" you say we should have would be for what purpose? I frankly don't see what possible difference it should Mae to you what my personal worldview might be!
Science is not done by popular vote of uneducated people.

We do not set the acceleration by gravity at the surface of the Earth up for grabs.

As far as science is concerned creationism is disproved.

Here is a rough sketch of how science is done. First you make some observations of nature. Then you make a "guess" about what you observed. You figure out a way to test your guess. Now you have a hypothesis. After testing you have a tested hypothesis. Let's assume it passed its test. Now after testing your hypothesis you publicize it. The publication process alone is grueling. Even if you are correct the odds are that you will not get published. If you have any mistakes in your paper it will be sent back to you for you to correct it. The publisher will not correct it for you, he will merely point out your errors. Finally let's say your paper is published. Now every expert in the field will try to pick your paper apart and show the world all of the errors that you made.

If you succeed at all of these steps you now have a scientific theory. The whole world has tried to knock it down and has failed.

The theory of evolution went through this process. It has been tested and retested and passed all tests thrown at it. It is an extremely well tested and well accepted theory. That is what it takes to get an idea taught in school.

Creationists want to cheat. They want to skip to the head of the line without going through all of these steps. They think that just because a group of uneducated people think 2 + 2 may equal 5 that is should be taught as an alternative in school. That is not the way science or science education works.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#135316 Jun 12, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof that the a Bible is superstition and mythology? You don't even have evidence much less proof of that statement!
Where is your proof there was no great flood?
What would possibly make you say that people of faith have dismissed science in general? That is an unbelievably inappropriate statement for one so "intelligent" to make. A child would know better than that!
What do you want disproved? Let's start with the Noah's Ark myth first.

Was it world wide in your opinion?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#135317 Jun 12, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is your proof that the a Bible is superstition and mythology? You don't even have evidence much less proof of that statement!
Where is your proof there was no great flood?
What would possibly make you say that people of faith have dismissed science in general? That is an unbelievably inappropriate statement for one so "intelligent" to make. A child would know better than that!
By the way, to say that the universe is very young you DO have to reject all science since and including Newton.
Believer

Knoxville, TN

#135318 Jun 12, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, to say that the universe is very young you DO have to reject all science since and including Newton.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the universe is very young.
Worldwide as we view the world, not necessarily. In Noah's day the known world was still small and believed by most to be flat.
There is plenty of archeological and fossil evidence of a great flood. Accounts of such a flood were discovered in the archeological ruins of other ancient cultures as well.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#135319 Jun 12, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So that's how schools and colleges teach you copy and paste refutation. That's about right for morons like y'all.
Aaww, did the baby get his feelings hurt?? Do you have to lash out with trash-talk when you lose?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#135320 Jun 12, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the universe is very young.
Worldwide as we view the world, not necessarily. In Noah's day the known world was still small and believed by most to be flat.
There is plenty of archeological and fossil evidence of a great flood. Accounts of such a flood were discovered in the archeological ruins of other ancient cultures as well.
There are some that do believe the Bible says the universe is only 6,000 years old. Hovind is a classic example.

There is evidence of many "great floods" in the past. We are talking about one specific flood.

What are your specific beliefs about animals on the Ark, humans on the Ark, how long ago it was etc.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#135321 Jun 12, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a chance moron boy, that's all mine.
However, I can't miss a chance to prove you're a deceitful liar.
So where's your proof?
I did say it sounds like didn't I.

Do you always have be so fcuking foul mouthed when you answer?

I thought you were a Jesus follower?

Does the Bible teach you to be that way.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#135322 Jun 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So you chalk it all up to coincidence.
I chalk it up to a retroviral insertion being almost like any other mutation. In the majority of cases, neutral, in a small number, deleterious, and in an even smaller number, beneficial, the last being positively selected. Just like any other random change to the genome.

Lets look at the examples you have given...
Numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers have documented tens of thousands of functional "viral insertion" sequences,aiding in transcription of over one fifth of the human genome.** Many of these include regulatory functions in prenatal development.***
Conley, A.B., Piriapongsa, J., and Jordan, I.K.,"Retroviral Promoters in the Human Genome", Bioinformatics 24 (14): pg. 1563, 2008
Tens of thousands? Googled this reference and the only result I got was YOUR POST!
Peaston A.E.,etc Retrotransposons regulate host genes in mouse oocytes and preimplantation embryos,
Yes, embryonic / placental, we knew about that.
Dunlap, K.A., etc Endogenous retroviruses regulate periimplantation placental growth and differentiation
...and again.
Matsui, T.,etc Mouse homologue of skin-specific retroviral-like aspartic protease (etc
And one more, involving a minor change to skin wrinkling, perhaps hinting at bigger effects on tissue organisation according to their abstract.
The interpretation of molecular homology relies on one's paradigm of thinking.
I accept that. For example, you continue to ignore the fact that there are 1000s of functionless ERVs and you also ignore the independent evidence that there is also the same nested hierarchy pattern in pseudogenes and in ubiquitous proteins (which reflect the DNA pattern).
One cannot logically assume that a given sequence of code is unique for a virus. If this were true, all ERV's would be non-functional.
No, because a uniquely coded viral protein certainly could have an effect on the host cell, either producing a new structural or catalytic protein. If that effect happened to be useful, we would then call the ERV functional.

Remember, as always, when the majority of failures are weeded out by host death, you only see the ones that were beneficial or neutral.
...the fact that thousands of these segments have proven functions
You keep saying thousands, and show two, though I accept others will no doubt be found.
It is inconceivable to suggest that numerous random DNA insertions would coincidentally result in complex beneficial genetic code alterations as a result of parasitic attacks.
Like any other mutation, a few will be beneficial. This is no different from any other type of mutation, with the exception that ERVs are not random sequences but are already functional in some way, though for their own benefit, not originally for the host cell's. Its highly likely that some of these could prove beneficial.

Yet as always, MOST are useless, merely implanting at random and useful only for illustrating the nested hierarchy of common ancestry. And the ones that were harmful, no doubt outnumbering the good ones by a large margin, were removed by natural selection. The reason I stay with the paradigm is because it WORKS.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#135323 Jun 12, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
So your absolute foundation for morality is "whatever feels morally right to me."
You have failed to define what is morally right.
Quite. What is wrong with that? Are you any different?

Would the story of Moses demanding that Abraham kill his only son have any moral impact if it did not strike you as morally abhorrent? If you had no standard other than God's instructions, you would think killing your son to be no different than shopping for milk, if God so ordered it. The whole impact of the story relies on you personally finding the whole idea difficult to deal with. i.e. your own independent morality.

I happen to find the idea that Abraham went into Egypt and gave his wife to the Pharaoh, pretending to be her brother, and the hapless Pharaoh was the one punished by God, not Abraham, as morally abhorrent too. What do YOU think?

I find the genocide of the Midianites no morally different than the later genocide of the Jews or Armenians. What do you think? Would you kills all the Nubians or Samoans if you thought God had ordered it? Your own son?

To reverse your question - do you HAVE any moral foundation of your own?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#135324 Jun 12, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The above is just one stupidity or lie, told by science.
Thanks to your refusal to learn any "cut and paste" i.e. existing KNOWLEDGE, you are forever doomed to make up useless naive conjectures.

You could learn more about how gravity works by pondering the cannonball example I gave you a week or two back, which showed how gravity as an attractive force could account for both "cannon balls" or anything else, falling to the earth, or endlessly orbiting it.

If you just understood that one elementary example, you would know 10 times more than you currently do. You HAVE to understand at least some of what is already known, before you can hope to add to it.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#135325 Jun 12, 2013
Believer wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting! And I'd be curious to know what you see as the difference in thinking between you and your fellow man who chooses to kill for fun, hates his fellow man if thinks he has a reason.
Out of common sense thinking would you not say that moral absolutes are more than a personal choice.
Moral rules are more than a personal choice, but not for supernatural reasons. Why do we lock up someone who kills for fun? Its a Social Contract. We have all agreed that such a person needs to be stopped - the next person he or someone like him kills for fun could be us, or our families, or our friends, etc. It's perfectly sensible to agree that such a man must be controlled.

Even in a non-supernatural world, morals are not arbitrary, but relate to our view of what will increase our pleasure and minimise our pain. For normal humans, fear and insecurity about themselves and their loved ones is painful. We make a deal with others that limits our own freedom in some respects, in order to increase our sense of security.

Right now it looks like the USA has gone overboard in this too...sacrificing a lot of freedom for a largely overblown fear of terrorism. Better watch out, not for terrorists, but for those who are diminishing your freedoms using terrorists as an excuse. More people probably die every day just in Boston from car crashes than from demented bombers. Perspective!

Its a balance.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#135326 Jun 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Moral rules are more than a personal choice, but not for supernatural reasons. Why do we lock up someone who kills for fun? Its a Social Contract. We have all agreed that such a person needs to be stopped - the next person he or someone like him kills for fun could be us, or our families, or our friends, etc. It's perfectly sensible to agree that such a man must be controlled.
Even in a non-supernatural world, morals are not arbitrary, but relate to our view of what will increase our pleasure and minimise our pain. For normal humans, fear and insecurity about themselves and their loved ones is painful. We make a deal with others that limits our own freedom in some respects, in order to increase our sense of security.
Right now it looks like the USA has gone overboard in this too...sacrificing a lot of freedom for a largely overblown fear of terrorism. Better watch out, not for terrorists, but for those who are diminishing your freedoms using terrorists as an excuse. More people probably die every day just in Boston from car crashes than from demented bombers. Perspective!
Its a balance.

It's control they want, in a new world order. But they mistake the
measure of our resolve. As we mistake the power in information.
It's like a machine that's trying to take control over it's operators.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#135327 Jun 12, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks to your refusal to learn any "cut and paste" i.e. existing KNOWLEDGE, you are forever doomed to make up useless naive conjectures.
You could learn more about how gravity works by pondering the cannonball example I gave you a week or two back, which showed how gravity as an attractive force could account for both "cannon balls" or anything else, falling to the earth, or endlessly orbiting it.
If you just understood that one elementary example, you would know 10 times more than you currently do. You HAVE to understand at least some of what is already known, before you can hope to add to it.
Your poor cannon ball myth was,---- a big if and it can't be, so go fish. The earths atmosphere prevents it you moron.

My theory of gravity being a push pull, illustrated by the space junk is proof, which you can't refute, but hey, that's your poor education.

Refute the following if you can.

Gravity
Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be tin a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.
The space junk in lower orbit will all fall back to earth, sooner or later. Science claims that gravity is an attractive force only, even with the lesson of the space junk, starring them in the face for decades. As the smartest people say, leave no stone unturned! Morons only consider one side, even without proof
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#135328 Jun 13, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I did say it sounds like didn't I.
Do you always have be so fcuking foul mouthed when you answer?
I thought you were a Jesus follower?
Does the Bible teach you to be that way.
I'm sorry princess, did i say something your fellow morons haven't said? Get a brain moron.

“What's your story? Nevermind.”

Since: Apr 13

none of my business.

#135329 Jun 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry princess, did i say something your fellow morons haven't said? Get a brain moron.
Oh the copy and paste king speaks again. You are a hypocrite that accuses people of copy and pate but yet that is all you do and I showed that in your stupid light/laser BS that you tried to look smart on. Go jerk off and shoot it in the floor and stomp on it that way the future will not have to worry about any replication of you. LMAO And yes I am being an @ss to you for I am just tired of hearing your twisted hypocritical BS. Deal with it!

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#135330 Jun 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Your poor cannon ball myth was,---- a big if and it can't be, so go fish. The earths atmosphere prevents it you moron.
The cannon-ball example deliberately excludes the atmosphere and I said so in the example. You completely miss the point it was demonstrating, which is a valid one.

And for as long as you fail to get that point, which will be forever thanks to your un-Godly arrogance, you will be incapable of making ANY useful insights into gravity.

I know that is true, and so does everybody on this forum, except for you. You are condemned to stupidity not by lack of intelligence, but by lack of humility.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#135331 Jun 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The cannon-ball example deliberately excludes the atmosphere and I said so in the example. You completely miss the point it was demonstrating, which is a valid one.
And for as long as you fail to get that point, which will be forever thanks to your un-Godly arrogance, you will be incapable of making ANY useful insights into gravity.
I know that is true, and so does everybody on this forum, except for you. You are condemned to stupidity not by lack of intelligence, but by lack of humility.
Lets see, ya got no proof of your cannonball nonsense and you can't refute my theory. That sums it up chimney, you're an idiot. Thanks.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#135332 Jun 13, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I did say it sounds like didn't I.
Do you always have be so fcuking foul mouthed when you answer?
I thought you were a Jesus follower?
Does the Bible teach you to be that way.
Lol, I know what you ment, you're ignorance and jealousy are all too obvious.

You're too stupid to know that I don't argue for religion, but that's to be expected from such a poor education. Thanks

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#135333 Jun 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets see, ya got no proof of your cannonball nonsense and you can't refute my theory. That sums it up chimney, you're an idiot. Thanks.
The launching of satellites proves of the substance of the cannonball analogy. As you would see, if you stopped to actually think about the cannonball analogy. But of course, you do not think, you merely spout your anger and hate.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#135334 Jun 13, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The launching of satellites proves of the substance of the cannonball analogy. As you would see, if you stopped to actually think about the cannonball analogy. But of course, you do not think, you merely spout your anger and hate.
Come on stupid, the atmosphere creates that need. That's why there are entry and exit windows. Besides, you can't refute my theory on space junk and gravity.

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
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 9 min geezerjock 5,957
Nitrogen Powered Hybrid Automobile (Dec '11) 35 min Spitfire III 194
Venus Gets Weirder: CO2 Oceans May Have Covered... 1 hr Dr Wu 2
Why Japan has bet its revival on humanoid robots 1 hr Ainu 32
Real Estate Agents: Single-Family Homes a Hot R... (Jun '12) 2 hr alamirfathy 136
We'll Find Alien Life in This Lifetime, Scienti... (May '14) 3 hr Sunday 31
Jobs coming in Utica with potential impact on L... 3 hr Thunder Thighed U... 46
More from around the web