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

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103698 Oct 6, 2012
Oops! Post corrected.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the argument you want to make.
It's not the argument you want me to make.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Entropy in general has many interdisiplinary applications, statistical mechanics and information theory for example. Standard textbooks discuss this routinely. For example, Bromberg's Physical Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Or read the Wiki on Entropy, Boltzmann's Entropy Formula, etc.
But what's that got to do with copying mistakes in DNA?
The same amount of energy is used making an error as making a perfect copy. So there is no difference in entropy.
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Each generation of each species is accumulating genetic mutations at the rate of approximately 100 - 300 new ones in humans. We all have them even if we don't show any particular disease. There are numerous recessive ones that is why it's not a good idea to marry your sister.
And natural selection (life) weeds out the dangerous mutations leaving only the harmless or beneficial.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Pompano Beach, FL

#103699 Oct 6, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
And natural selection (life) weeds out the dangerous mutations leaving only the harmless or beneficial.
The harmful genetic mutations continue to accumulate in the genome and can quickly surface when inbreeding so is just a matter of time when they accumulate too far and genetic meltdown occurs. We see this happen in nature often. Besides the accumulating mutations, we also age, die, and decompose.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#103700 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The harmful genetic mutations continue to accumulate in the genome and can quickly surface when inbreeding so is just a matter of time when they accumulate too far and genetic meltdown occurs. We see this happen in nature often. Besides the accumulating mutations, we also age, die, and decompose.
In the wild inbreeding will result in weak animals that will die or fail to breed and so the bad mutations will die out, healthy ones will survive.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#103701 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Reached new lows I see. Lying and trash talking. Pathetic.
Everyone outside of your bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE cult knows who the LIARS are.

Heck, you "fundie xristian creotards" just can't help yourselves. Your whole world-view is based on LIES: "The Bible is "literally and inerrantly" true and everything that contradicts a "literal and inerrant Bible" is false."

Yeah, right. Let the LYING begin.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103702 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
You claim mass dictates gravity, is that right?

Science
Newton
Einstein
QM

All understand that mass produces the effect of gravitation.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103703 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Then tell us why the mass of Uranus is 14.537 times greater than earth and yet, it has only 91% of earths gravity?
It's revolution rate around the sun is very slow, at 2.59 km/s, compared to earths, 29.8 km/s.
My hypothesis still stands.

You have not listened to anything we have tried to teach you.

Gravity decreases as an inverse square of the distance from the center of the object producing gravity. How many times have we said this or a reasonable facsimile of this???? More time than I care to count!

On Uranus you are many times further away from the center than we are on earth.

Anything lighting up in that warped brain of yours??

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103704 Oct 6, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah this really did not dawn on me for years. Exactly WHAT stops "micro" from becoming "macro"? Have Creationists ever given even a hint of a reply to this?
Yes, it does seem that creationists would prefer to see microevolution and macroevolution as two distinct processes. But it is more logical to see it as just one process, with each generation of each species in constant transition.
Urban Cowboy

Pompano Beach, FL

#103705 Oct 6, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but false. There are multiple mechanism for evolution. Try googling "mechanisms of evolution"
<quoted text>
Sorry, again false. The world is replete with transitionals.
Now go in front of mirror and slap yourself real hard. The complexity and fine tuning throughout life and the universe are very imaginary.
Nope, you are mistaken.
Urban Cowboy

Pompano Beach, FL

#103706 Oct 6, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
In the wild inbreeding will result in weak animals that will die or fail to breed and so the bad mutations will die out, healthy ones will survive.
Until there are no more healthy ones, then genetic meltdown and extinction.
Urban Cowboy

Pompano Beach, FL

#103707 Oct 6, 2012
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone outside of your bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE cult knows who the LIARS are.
Heck, you "fundie xristian creotards" just can't help yourselves. Your whole world-view is based on LIES: "The Bible is "literally and inerrantly" true and everything that contradicts a "literal and inerrant Bible" is false."
Yeah, right. Let the LYING begin.
You're all talk Dutch.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#103708 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That is not the argument you want to make. Entropy in general has many interdisiplinary applications, statistical mechanics and information theory for example. Standard textbooks discuss this routinely. For example, Bromberg's Physical Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Or read the Wiki on Entropy, Boltzmann's Entropy Formula, etc.
Each generation of each species is accumulating genetic mutations at the rate of approximately 100 - 300 new ones in humans. We all have them even if we don't show any particular disease. There are numerous recessive ones that is why it's not a good idea to marry your sister.
What is the entropy of a shrubbery? Show us the math.

You wouldn't want folks to think you're full of shít. Would you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103709 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Every text book in the world is wrong about mass and gravity, as Uranus vs earth proves.

No, you are wrong again, as I just proved.

Look at the formula for gravity here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_o...

Note the bottom term is r^2 (or radius squared). So gravity is a function of the distance from the center of mass.

I don't know how to make this more clear.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103710 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I have done a lot more studying and it all seems to support my hypothesis, unless you evos think you can prove otherwise.
The evidence is there.

No, your paranoia is there. Nothing more.

Do you understand that gravity is less the further you get away from a body?

Do we feel the gravity of Jupiter on earth as much as we would on Jupiter?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103711 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Earths rotation rate around the barycenter between the earth and 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. However, earth has water all across its surface, where most other planets don't, so that likely plays a big part in having a strong atmosphere.
Then look at earths moon, it's rotational rate around the earth and its barycenter 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 barycenter and the sun at 78,341 miles per hour, that's faster than earths rotation rate around the suns barycenter, 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. 
On to Uranus!!! 
It is 14.537 times larger than earth and yet, it has but 91%of earths gravity. Notice!!!, Uranus rotates around the sun or barycenter, at just, 2.59 km/s. 
You can fit 750 earths inside Saturn and yet, Saturn has about the same gravity as earth. 
Saturns rotational rate is just, 9.63 km/s. 
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 suns barycenter 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 and their respective barycenters 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.
On rover curiosity, today's scientists claim that mars gravity is only 1/6th of earths, so who is right, today's scientists that must know mars gravity to land the 2000 pound rover curiosity from a hovering craft, or newton and Einstein, that claim mars has a gravity of 38%?
According to science, we do not rotate around the sun, we rotate around the barycenter.
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 

Hypothesis refuted by,--
Dogen, et al.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103712 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Science flat out lies and you still agree with it. Now that's blind faith.

You flat out make things up with no knowledge about them. Not that is Delusional Disorder.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103713 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because it only exists in your imagination.

His imagination, the genetic record, the fossil record, field studies, and Laboratories.

How is the life of denial coming.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#103714 Oct 6, 2012
Dogen wrote:
Dating Between Modern Humans and Neandertals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/...
It would seem likely that the Neandertals were originally from the same ancestory as the Africans, and were the first to migrate north. They would have had to have been isolated for a very long time (X thousands of years) to have become a sub-species, but not quite a new species. They would have likely been re-absorbed into the original genome in subsequent migrations.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103715 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I showed you all the math a few pages back. It is standard physics. I showed you Boltzman's formula and the reference. I stepped through the equation and referenced everything. What is wrong with you?

I showed you all the refutations a few pages back. It is standard physics. I showed you Shannon formula and the reference. I provided you with explanations of where you went wrong and referenced everything. What is wrong with you?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103716 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
In certain areas that does seem to be true. Because when it comes to macroevolution, the evolutionists deny all the facts and believe in it against all odds. It's a pandemic mental illness.

I certainly believe there is a pandemic of mental illness going on. I see more here everyday than I usually see at work.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103717 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they are completely different processes. Mendellian genetics explains microevolution and we easily predict and observe the genetic variation. Macroevolution is the notion that lots of micro can cause an organism to change into a different kind of organism over vast periods of time but there isn't any evidence to support it. There is no known mechanism for it occur, i.e., genetic mutations can not create some new or nascent limb or organ. Entropy also prevents systems from becoming more organized. Macroevolution is a dead theory and is a big waste of time and money at this point.

There is no essentual difference between microevolution and macroevolution except time. No one has ever found a way to limit microevolution and prevent macroevolution.

That is why Macroevolution is:
Observed in the fossil record (fact)
Observed in the DNA record (fact)
Observed in field studies (fact)
Observed in the Lab (disputed fact).

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr deutscher Nationa... 121,157
Darwin on the rocks 3 hr The Dude 375
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 5 hr The Dude 721
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 6 hr woodtick57 383
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 hr MikeF 138,204
Monkey VS Man Oct 19 Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE