Why not teach problems with ToE in school?

Myself I certainly think all the intricases of the theory and evidence should be taught.For a real understanding of the field the areas of uncertainty and difficulty are absolutely necessary.However, it is difficult to appreciate these without the basic understanding and even that doesn't seem to be taught very well in high school. There just isn't enough time.Unfortunately, your understanding is weak enough that you are picking on things that are not real problems. The issues are with things that you might have trouble with (as would I) until you understand more of the basics.

You are not going to be convincing to anyone nor are you going to learn anything if you keep putting forth such pronouncements. You have absolutely no idea if "most" mutations do just anything at all.If pressed you can't define what percentage of mutations do anything of any particular kind.Is Down's syndrome one of the "most" mutations you are talking about or not? If you can get that right I'd like you to list the genetic changes behind a dozen human defects showing that "most" of them are "deletions".

I think I have to disgree with some of the comments about who puts abiogenesis and evolution together and who doesn't.They are, of course, rather different disciplines; one being chemisty and one being biology.However, when these subjects are being rushed over in a very few weeks of high school science they sure look like they are together.It seems to me that you find geology and evolution (because of fossils) being taught within pages of each other in some texts and then a half page somewhere in there on the ideas of origins of living things.The distinctness of the disciplines doesn't show up when the coverage is so very light.For this reason I would excuse the average creationist when they come in here confused about it. What I can't excuse is the professional creationists who know better but use it as a red-herring in discussions of the ToE. THAT is dishonest.And let's remember that if you are studying the evolution of life on earth it is a pretty obvious question to bring up "How did it start? ". Let's be fair about that too.Darwin set the stage correctly originally. He made it clear he was NOT talking about the orgins of life. He didn't even to commit to just one ancestor to all life. Those issues were not what he was discussing and, as we've pointed out, separate questions to the ones he was answering.

It does? Where does it say that?

Guess what, I'll take that bet. What would you like to make it for? What will you take as evidence for either side? We can start a new thread on this one if you want to take it up.

Haven't we all agreed from the very beginning that, ideally and time permitting, we would, of course, teach the problems with the ToE?There really isn't an agrument on the core question of the thread.All that's left is -- what are the problems? Which ones could you teach in an introductory level course, if any?

I've rather lost track of the context of this question. How is it related to "problems" that should be taught?Also, what will you accept as examples? Each of us is genetically different from all others (almost -- when twins are considered). The differences between us confer greater strength to some, speed to others (apparently Lance Armstrongs thigh bones are longer than average, he has a larger than normal lung capacity etc), intelligence to others. Those differences may in some contexts (the French alps) be beneficial.Is that what you want?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-31-2004 10:38 AM