Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 174,458

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
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154900 Sep 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Breaking news!!!
Thousands of dinosaur tracks found along Alaska's Yukon River.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/thousands-dino...
Along with Fred Flinstone's watch???

:-D
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154901 Sep 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You completely contradict yourself.
You voice a foredrawn conclusion that hemoglobin was "optimized within the constraints of naturalism"... then in the same breath.."nobody is assuming a natural explanation."
You make no attempt to subject your views to probability challenges. The number of stereoisomers of the alpha chain of hemoglobin far exceeds the number of atoms in the visible universe... by many orders of magnitude. It is irrelevant how many functional variants you might imagine... any number can be effectively rounded down to zero when compared to the nonfunctional variants.
No it can't.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154902 Sep 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your PHILOSOPHY points to a naturalistic origin of life.
Nope.
HTS wrote:
Science points to the conclusion that abiogenesis is impossible.
Does "science" point to the belief that molecular forces can create a genetic code from random nucleotides? Does "science" point to natural forces producing homochirality? Does "science" point to conceptual gradualistic steps from inorganic molecules to a cell?
Yup.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154903 Sep 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's obvious that the SLoT cannot explain all of the order in the universe. The order apparent in a symphony or in visual art cannot be reduced to the Boltzmann equation, but there is real order that clearly indicates intelligence.
Why is intelligence immune to the SLoT?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154904 Sep 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for evolution (molecules to man). As I've demonstrated before, all of your "scientific arguments" are ultimately reduced to your rejection of intelligent design.
No they're not. You're the one who rejects it as atheism.
HTS wrote:
I'll give you an example...
Evidence for evolution... molecular homology.
The only "evidence" is the contention that molecular homology is inconsistent with intelligent design.
Nope. DNA being a measure of how closely related organisms are makes no claims about what any ID's did. Nested hierarchies make no claims about what any ID's did. Comparative anatomy makes no claims about what any ID's did. ERV's make no claims about what any Gods did.
HTS wrote:
You cannot scientifically demonstrate that an ape could be bred into a human.
Actually we can. Take a blood test. Have your parents take a blood test. If the DNA match is consistent with genetic drift then two apes bred and were left with an ape.
HTS wrote:
YOu cannot demonstrate it experimentally or on paper.
Would you like pictures? I'll let you do the research.
HTS wrote:
All you have is the one-size-fits-all dogma of "mutations + natural selection". You have no scientific evidence that australopithicus was a pre-human ancestor.
No, but we do have evidence it's consistent with what Darwin predicted.
HTS wrote:
In the first place, you have no scientifically valid way of dating a fossil.
Sure we do, however dating techniques are not the same as biological evidence. If you want to deny reality and assume that the Earth is 6,000 years old then that doesn't change the evidence for common ancestry. In fact it means you need super-duper evolution for your position to work. So this is only a problem for us if it's a problem for you too. If it's NOT a problem for you then it's not for us.

Oh wait a sec - forgot you were a hypocrite.
HTS wrote:
You have no scientific evidence that Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct ape.
The fact we can classify it as an ape is evidence that it is consistent with nested hierarchies. If Australopithecus was an extinct Centaur or Mermaid THEN we'd have problems.

You wouldn't though. Godmagic could make anything. That is the point.
HTS wrote:
Molecular homology is not a scientific argument, because you presume that you are disproving intelligent design.
We are not disproving Godmagic because ID is not falsifiable. We are not making any claims about ID at all. YOU are. You are claiming that ID is limited to the evidence that we see, yet there is zero evidence of your God. And unlike us, you CAN'T predict the potential characteristics of organisms that could be found in the fossil record. You can't predict whether mermaids or centaurs should exist. You can't predict whether pre-Cambrian rabbits should exist. You can't predict whether we should find fossils with feathers and three middle-ear bones or not.

Ergo your position is non-falsifiable.
HTS wrote:
You cannot look at nucleotide sequences and conclude that DNA is not intelligently designed.
We haven't. You cannot look at nucleotide sequences and conclude that DNA is intelligently designed. If you could you'd be able to devise a way to test your claims.

You can't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154905 Sep 25, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I see nothing here that we have not refuted before.
Neither has he.

What's important is that he is in the lion's den bravely defending his faith, despite being seperated from the gnashing teeth by hundreds of miles and an internet connection.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#154906 Sep 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no scientific evidence for evolution (molecules to man). As I've demonstrated before, all of your "scientific arguments" are ultimately reduced to your rejection of intelligent design.
I'll give you an example...
Evidence for evolution... molecular homology.
The only "evidence" is the contention that molecular homology is inconsistent with intelligent design. You cannot scientifically demonstrate that an ape could be bred into a human. YOu cannot demonstrate it experimentally or on paper. All you have is the one-size-fits-all dogma of "mutations + natural selection". You have no scientific evidence that australopithicus was a pre-human ancestor. In the first place, you have no scientifically valid way of dating a fossil. You have no scientific evidence that Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct ape.
Molecular homology is not a scientific argument, because you presume that you are disproving intelligent design. You cannot look at nucleotide sequences and conclude that DNA is not intelligently designed.
Dont think for one second that we are even trying to disprove intelligent design. Its simply rendered unnecessary. Why throw in an ingredient that is totally unnecessary?

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#154907 Sep 25, 2013
Many times a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. :-)

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#154908 Sep 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You completely contradict yourself.
You voice a foredrawn conclusion that hemoglobin was "optimized within the constraints of naturalism"... then in the same breath.."nobody is assuming a natural explanation."
You make no attempt to subject your views to probability challenges. The number of stereoisomers of the alpha chain of hemoglobin far exceeds the number of atoms in the visible universe... by many orders of magnitude. It is irrelevant how many functional variants you might imagine... any number can be effectively rounded down to zero when compared to the nonfunctional variants.
Ok HTS, shoot. You provide a probability challenge and I will answer it. Tomorrow. Its 1.35am here

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#154909 Sep 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Breaking news!!!
Thousands of dinosaur tracks found along Alaska's Yukon River.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/thousands-dino...
Any Sarah Palin tracks found next to them?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154910 Sep 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Many times a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side.:-)
Then the majority must be creationists.

Don't believe me? Ask the creationists. Evolutionists are a dying breed.
HTS

Williston, ND

#154911 Sep 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dont think for one second that we are even trying to disprove intelligent design. Its simply rendered unnecessary. Why throw in an ingredient that is totally unnecessary?
Chimney, do you have a naturalistic explanation for homochirality?
You cannot conclude that intelligent design is "totally unnecessary" to create complexities that you don't even understand.
You philosophically believe that ID is unnecessary.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#154912 Sep 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok HTS, shoot. You provide a probability challenge and I will answer it. Tomorrow. Its 1.35am here
Is it really a challenge when he just "effectively rounded it down" to zero anyway?

:-/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#154913 Sep 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Chimney, do you have a naturalistic explanation for homochirality?

It is found in amino acids from asteroids. So, going out on a limb, I am going to say yes.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot conclude that intelligent design is "totally unnecessary" to create complexities that you don't even understand.

Sorry, but you have science bass ackward again. It is not necessary to disprove anything for which there is no evidence of in the first place. Science does not claim to understand everything in the universe. Science is a journey of discovery and exploration that has lead to the science and technology we see today.
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> You philosophically believe that ID is unnecessary.

No, that would be science. See Occam's razor. You philosophically believe that ID is necessary. There is no scientific basis for that belief.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#154914 Sep 25, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no scientific evidence for evolution (molecules to man). As I've demonstrated before, all of your "scientific arguments" are ultimately reduced to your rejection of intelligent design.
I'll give you an example...
Evidence for evolution... molecular homology.
The only "evidence" is the contention that molecular homology is inconsistent with intelligent design. You cannot scientifically demonstrate that an ape could be bred into a human. YOu cannot demonstrate it experimentally or on paper. All you have is the one-size-fits-all dogma of "mutations + natural selection". You have no scientific evidence that australopithicus was a pre-human ancestor. In the first place, you have no scientifically valid way of dating a fossil. You have no scientific evidence that Australopithecus was nothing more than an extinct ape.
Molecular homology is not a scientific argument, because you presume that you are disproving intelligent design. You cannot look at nucleotide sequences and conclude that DNA is not intelligently designed.
No moron, all you have ever done is to show that you do not understand what evidence is.

If you want to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence I will still be glad to teach you. Of course you still owe me an apology for running out on the class long ago.

Until then, try to remember that you are an idiot who has no clue of what counts as evidence or how evidence works.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#154915 Sep 25, 2013
imagine life before the polarises of science and religion
into one true faith,
ever looked outside your window
this time of year
the time of the fall,
well i have learnt a lot about that one
all embracing chill
of crisp permafrost beating about your ears,
no can i be so arcane,
no you shall not read the headlines that this
old monk head is losing his religion.

imagine a science before the paralyses
sorry polarises of science and religion
bet you can't.
wager you don't even care
the mindlessness of the subject.

science is real
so too is logic
but are we real as people.
nearly a trickle of neutrinos
caught up in a head storm of charged photons.

the multi complexity to life forms
are infinite,
and abound the universe.

we however,
are unsympathetic to being categorised
if not phased completely out
in mathematical logic.

we have been told
fooled even by our own volitions
that the senses perceive reality
we can see ourselves
in our daily roles of our lives,
we become convinced that we exist:
we pandar to incorrect aspersion of what
reality is and the position of life is in.

grave mishap and uncertainty
have played out its goals
as well as war games between
warring factions of alien species
has at best introduced,
that reality and life systems of belief
are not consensual,
for what would seem
the whole group.

something has charge does that mean
that something therefore has life
course not.

and what about life in reality
there is more than one reality,
and reality is not dependent upon life itself.

“GOD OF ALL”

Since: Aug 12

London, UK

#154916 Sep 25, 2013
the body is a light source
of charged photons
turning energy into heat
and then turning heat into power:
the driver for life formats.

we are at best a life format of charged photon logic.
a maelstrom of combined energy,
heat and power.

the whole of matter in the universe
merely a combination of charged photon logic.
everything has matter,
because it is made of photons.

see, that is what photons do
over space time
become physical:
combine forces with ice isotopes
and recombine isotopes,
with energy, heat and power
around the centre of massed gravity
to form material shapes.

these fabrics of material that centre around gravity
that produce objects such as man,
are as old and as intricate as light.

each and every photon is the building blocks
to matter and our maybe life systems
into which can be only best described as
quantum masses polarised by
energy heat and power
into,
material light sources.

take how the graviton plays its part
in binding and combining
if not recombining isotopes
of one description and another
into quantum masses of light sources.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#154917 Sep 25, 2013
Wow.

I imagine you think you're deep.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#154919 Sep 25, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>
Any Sarah Palin tracks found next to them?

They was all under them, I think it proves she went in the house before M'Cain did ?

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#154920 Sep 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No, it is actually more of a call to investigate things further. It simply means we don't understand what is going on. Yet.
No! Science must play by the rules.
They must stay with in the laws of the universe.

They try to invoke magic by stating "it is at this point all the laws of physics break down"

This is a faith a belief not science.

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
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 2 hr One way or another 27,333
UFO spotted in NASA video of astronauts repairi... 2 hr Messed Up Mess 1
Egg in tiny doses curbs allergy (Jul '12) 5 hr MOMIN ANSARI 7
halherta Both Apple and Microsoft are guilty of... 5 hr not happy with an... 1
How to Recover Deleted Contacts from iPhone 4 w... (Feb '13) 6 hr LareinaLeigh 55
Is Time An Illusion? (May '10) 10 hr SoE 5,540
White House rejects calls for Ebola travel ban 11 hr the Light 29

Science / Technology People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE