Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#96636 Jul 24, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You're demanding something that is exactly antithetical to what is currently understood to occur in nature, and citing the lack of that something to be evidence that the theory of evolution is invalid. You create your own definition of evolution, and then when reality doesn't map to it, you puff your chest up and declare victory. What part of that is not asshat crazy?
I'll tell what's crazy, you denying your own reference!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#96637 Jul 24, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't confuse Jim with facts! He does better with supposition, paranoid fantasies, and delusions of granduer. Imagine what a child of him and Shoob would be like?
--- EWWWWW!!!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#96638 Jul 24, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
So instead of attacking me personally you stick to the evidence and focus on one point at a time until it is fully resolved.
Pretty funny to hear this from you after all the names you've called me.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96639 Jul 24, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
There IS random genetic variation that was the design of the genome from creation and there IS non-random selection but this only expresses the wonderful variety we find within each kind and cannot ever transition one kind to another kind. This is well supported by all the scientific evidence. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.
Your opinion is noted; however there is no evidence to support it. This type of acceptance of 'some' genetic variation doesn't match the evidence. You are creating an artificial line that has no actual support. There is no magical barrier preventing speciation. Do you ahve any actual scientific support for this idea? ICR/DI, AIG and it's ilk are not scientific support.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96640 Jul 24, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You act like you're some sort of evolution guru omniscient from birth or soomething. Get real, everybody had to learn it sometime. I don't remember ever asking you about half species. And yes, I have come to a deeper understanding over the last few years and it wasn't until I drilled down further to finer details that I changed my mind, and now that I continue my search down every possible rabbit hole I have all but eliminated all doubt. I don't see this changing. Even if I had PhD from Harvard in Evolution you would still claim I don't understand it. So instead of attacking me personally you stick to the evidence and focus on one point at a time until it is fully resolved.

Your education on evolution is currently nil + 1. You have a long way to go before you can even seriously claim to have investigated it.

And you are really throwing bricks from a glass house in complaining about personal attacks.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96641 Jul 24, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
And studying secular biology has had the opposite intended affect on me. As a prepare to take the test soon, I more confident than ever that I am right about intelligent design and a recent creation.
So obviously being able to set aside your prejudices is a foreign concept for you. It's OK, UC, it was expected. You are learning enough to pass a test, you are not actually learning any biology. And thus reveals the flaws in the CLEP system.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96642 Jul 24, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You lying piece of crap. You cut and paste all the time.
<quoted text>
I don't believe this is one for idiocy. But you could be the first.
Jim wouldn't even qualify for an 'igNobel'.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96643 Jul 24, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Venus is in retrograde, so I'm not sure how much will be affected but I don't think much, if any. It still has spin and rotation, unless one or two forces are acting on Venus, like a tug of war, but then the other planets in retrograde would have similar situations and should be easily noticed once a catylist is found. Could spin ratio amongst the planet set up such, I don't know, but I think it's possible.
And here is a perfect example of why you fail. If your 'ideas' were an actual scinetific hypothesis, one of the questions that you would HAVE to answer is explaining why a planet in retrograde would be different. Your casual dismissal with a 'but I don't think much, if any' would have caused any reviewer to send you packing with a note reading something along the lines of 'do you own damn homework'.

You have an idea, yet you refuse to follow anything resembling a scientific methodology and then you whine that people aren't being fair to you. You have a lot to learn!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#96644 Jul 24, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
He is an impressive liar.
Not really. It comes down to rationalization. An impressive lie stands on it's own! When the liar requires to rationalize, it means his lie is too shakey and requires extra support. From the amount of tap-dancing he's been doing, he's not very impressive, more the garden-variety type.
Psychology

United States

#96645 Jul 24, 2012
Children never seem to offer reasonable rebuttal. They simply use childish name calling and innuendo, in groups, as they show here everyday.

Earths rotation rate around the sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph. Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well.

Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth is, very slow, 1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity. Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak. 

Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the sun, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun, Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.

Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my  hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere. Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere. 

Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the sun is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher  and by the way, it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.

Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun at about the same velocity. Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour., and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion. The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan 
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#96646 Jul 24, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
So obviously being able to set aside your prejudices is a foreign concept for you. It's OK, UC, it was expected. You are learning enough to pass a test, you are not actually learning any biology. And thus reveals the flaws in the CLEP system.
I'll be more qualified in biology than you are! Heck this stuff is relatively easy compared to the math and physics I had to endure with meteorology and the accounting and CPA were MUCH more difficult. The CLEP is just a way to save time and money so I can get a jump on the degree.
Psychology

United States

#96647 Jul 24, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
And here is a perfect example of why you fail. If your 'ideas' were an actual scinetific hypothesis, one of the questions that you would HAVE to answer is explaining why a planet in retrograde would be different. Your casual dismissal with a 'but I don't think much, if any' would have caused any reviewer to send you packing with a note reading something along the lines of 'do you own damn homework'.
You have an idea, yet you refuse to follow anything resembling a scientific methodology and then you whine that people aren't being fair to you. You have a lot to learn!
Then show how science has come to understand retrogrades position.

Level 4

Since: Apr 12

United States

#96648 Jul 24, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point about evidence being rationalized against one piece at a time. And if you trace back the rationalizations to the core, evolution, at best, only plays a small part in the real argument.
For UC and other creationists, it's really about having a purpose. Anything that argues against humans having a divine purpose is rejected. And anything suggesting that human life is not eternal is also rejected. This is the starting point that leads to one crazy rationalization after another.
Interesting point.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Burke, VA

#96649 Jul 24, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Then show how science has come to understand retrogrades position.
Secular science has no explanation for any of the rotational motions in nature; forward or backward! From atoms to galaxies, and ATP Synthase motors to flagellums, they got nothing.

It is very interesting to observe the retrograde motions of planets and moons. There are even retrograde galaxies. The Creator certainly enjoyes variety.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#96650 Jul 24, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell what's crazy, you denying your own reference!
Nope. Never did. You, however, are demanding that we see huge changes within a single generation that simply aren't the norm. When these huge changes aren't seen, you declare that this proves the theory of evolution false. A single mutation will not, for instance, result in an entirely new organ, as you claim it ought to. We don't see new organs arise from single mutations, therefore evolutionary theory is wrong! Like I said, you make up your own definition, and when reality doesn't map to that, you declare victory. Which part did I get wrong? Was it the "make up your own definition," the "doesn't map to reality," or "declare victory?"

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#96651 Jul 24, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Secular science has no explanation for any of the rotational motions in nature; forward or backward! From atoms to galaxies, and ATP Synthase motors to flagellums, they got nothing.
It is very interesting to observe the retrograde motions of planets and moons. There are even retrograde galaxies. The Creator certainly enjoyes variety.
It's not nice to lie to the resident retard.

By the way, what is "forward" when discussing rotation in space?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#96652 Jul 24, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Children never seem to offer reasonable rebuttal. They simply use childish name calling and innuendo, in groups, as they show here everyday.
Earths rotation rate around the sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph. Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well.
Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth is, very slow, 1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity. Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak. 
You are neglecting the motion of the moon around the sun, which is very close to that for the earth.
Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the sun, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun, Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.
Huh? What relevance does the second law have to the gravity of Venus?
Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my  hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere. Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere.
So your model is shown to be wrong. Spin has nothing to do with it.
 
Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the sun is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher  and by the way, it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.
No, the second law is irrelevant. What *is* relevant is the mass and radius of Mercury.
Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun at about the same velocity.
Mars is about 20% slower.
Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour.
No. The speed of rotation at the equator of Mars is slower than that because of the smaller radius (almost the same time for a rotation, though)
, and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion. The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.
Huh?
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 
The local village idiot.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96653 Jul 24, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. It comes down to rationalization. An impressive lie stands on it's own! When the liar requires to rationalize, it means his lie is too shakey and requires extra support. From the amount of tap-dancing he's been doing, he's not very impressive, more the garden-variety type.

I am impressed by the shear volume of his lies, not their quality.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96654 Jul 24, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Children never seem to offer reasonable rebuttal. They simply use childish name calling and innuendo, in groups, as they show here everyday.
Earths rotation rate around the sun is about 67,000 miles an hour. Earths spinrate on its axis is right at 1,000 mph. Notice that earth has a strong atmosphere and strong gravity as well.
Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth is, very slow, 1.03 km/s just as the moons spin rate on its own axis is about 13 miles per hour. Notice that the moon has very little atmosphere and very little gravity. Both axial spin and rotation around earth are slow and the atmosphere and gravity are very weak. 
Let's then look at the rotation rate of Venus, around the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the sun, of course, Venus is closer to the sun and being closer to the sun, Gravity becomes greater according to Newtons second law of motion, so how is it that Venus is 90% of the size, mass and density and it's gravity is 90% of the earths. That cannot be, Venus is 1/3 closer to the sun. If Newtons 2nd law is correct, venus should have a much greater gravity.
Then it's axis spin rate is very slow, at just 6.5 km/hour, but I add in, that Venus has an atmosphere where the winds roar across the planet at 220 miles per hour, approximately. This will prove important, because in my  hypothesis, axial spin rate creates atmosphere. However, with Venus as a model and a tiny axial spin rate, there should be no atmosphere. Volcanoes to the rescue, it seems those and more chemicals are creating the venus atmosphere. 
Next is Mercury, it spins on its own axis at only 6 mph and according to my hypothesis, mercury should not have much of an atmosphere and it doesnt. However, it's rotational rate around the sun is 106,000 miles per hour, meaning, that according to my hypothesis, Mercury's gravity should be higher  and by the way, it is 2/3rds closer to the sun than the earth, so it's gravity should be very high, even for its size, but wait a minute, mercury is 40% of earths size. Gravity on Mercury is only 38% of earths. According to Newtons second law of motion, gravity should be much higher on mercury.
Mars, now here's something interesting. Mars and earth traverse their orbits around the sun at about the same velocity. Both also spin on their axis at about 1,000 miles per hour., and yet, mars is half the size of earth. Mars gravity is 38% of earths gravity, which is less than half of earths, but once one factors in that mars is further away from the sun, it's easy to see the other 12% loss in gravity, considering Newtons second law of motion. The mars spin and orbital rate match up with its gravity and atmosphere, according to my hypothesis.
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 

Refuted nonsense now being ignored.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#96655 Jul 24, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be more qualified in biology than you are! Heck this stuff is relatively easy compared to the math and physics I had to endure with meteorology and the accounting and CPA were MUCH more difficult. The CLEP is just a way to save time and money so I can get a jump on the degree.

A 100 level biology credit should not be that hard. It is just an intro class, why WOULD it be that hard?

And a 100 level class in biology that most of us have already taken hardly qualifies you as knowing more than anybody else here. You are on the right path, but you have a LONG way to go.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min Science 67,215
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Science 28,657
Curious dilemma about DNA 1 hr Confucius 368
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Subduction Zone 160,955
What location did life started in? 2 hr Confucius 11
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 2 hr Confucius 1,766
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Subduction Zone 221,262
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 12 hr replaytime 332
More from around the web