Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178616 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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#103756 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I know theoretical BS when I write it.
FIFY

You're welcome.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#103757 Oct 6, 2012
Teslas unified theory. I have said much the same.

Science is now exploring those depths. Why, because science knows the theory of gravity as it stands is pure BS.

http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia:Tesla 's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#103760 Oct 6, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
The total rubbish posted by Jimbo
You seemed surprised.

;-)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#103761 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Teslas unified theory. I have said much the same.
You're no Tesla.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103763 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The theory of gravity is just that, theory.

Do you understand what a theory is, in science?

Has gravity been shown to exist?

Can we predict the movement of spacecraft throughout the solar system with miniscule error?

So gravity, like evolution, is both a fact AND a theory.

I explained the calculation of what the proportional gravity would be on Earth and Uranus. You have no calculation that can do that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103764 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Teslas unified theory. I have said much the same.
Science is now exploring those depths. Why, because science knows the theory of gravity as it stands is pure BS.
http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia:Tesla 's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

Einsteins gravity has been tested and shown to be EXTREMELY accurate.

The experiments are completely consistent with Einstein's prediction of mass warping the fabric of space-time.

You seem to have an affection for conspiracy theories.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#103768 Oct 6, 2012
We'll adjust the data, so we look like morons or is it well adjust the data, so we don't look like 750 million dollar failures. Hmmm
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#103769 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Teslas unified theory. I have said much the same.
Science is now exploring those depths. Why, because science knows the theory of gravity as it stands is pure BS.
http://peswiki.com/energy/PowerPedia:Tesla 's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity
So, in your OWN WORDS (to demonstrate you have a knowledge of the subject) explain why the theory of gravity is bullshit.

You own words mind you, know how you love the cut and paste

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#103770 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
We'll adjust the data, so we look like morons or is it well adjust the data, so we don't look like 750 million dollar failures. Hmmm

Gravity has been essentially unchanged since July 5, 1687.

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

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103771 Oct 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if you weren't always concerned about your nutsacks you'd learn something for a change.
dS = k ln We/Ws
dS is the change in entropy; k is the Botzmann's constant; ln is the natural log; We is the number of equivalent micro states (possible arrangments) of the energy and Ws is the number of equivalent micro states of the system.
Here is the bottom line and think of examples in nature and you can see this is always the case:
1. Applying energy to a system in a way that is more random than the system receiving it will increase the entropy of that system.
2. Applying energy to a system in a way that is less random than the system receiving it will decrease the entropy of that system.
DNA has an extrememly low randomness, i.e., it is highly complex and consequently has very, very low Ws. So although all the machinations of a healthy, thriving living cell are doing everything they can to preserve it, and it is probably closed to balanced (if properly fed nutriants, sun, water, etc.), it is slowly deteriorating over time as a whole as shown in the population genetics and accumulating mutations, and as we see in aging, death, and decomposition.
Biology is not physics.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103772 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I know theoretical BS when I read it.
Like your "spin = gravity" BS?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103773 Oct 6, 2012
Johny wrote:
The Flood - Many in geology would discount the idea that the flood did occur. They assume that everything is pretty much like it is today but that assumption I believe is flawed. We use carbon dating with the assumption that the amount of C14 in the air is the same as today. Is this assumption accurate? Or is the decay rate constant? A special creation would total wipe out our naturalistic assumptions of uniformity. But I should mention the art in C14 dating, which requires the user to have some understanding or else false results will be had. I think that C14 dating after the flood is probably accurate but before the flood I would really question it. Many held to the belief of Creationism early on in Geology and the other sciences but they too quickly dropped it when some things did not match the then believed picture of creation. I think creationists have a long way to go to put forward a clear view of creation accounting for all the details but I do believe it is possible and will happen - if not in this world at the Second Coming of Christ the conquering warrior.
So, you're saying you don't believe in uniformitarianism. Great. You're well on your way to not believing the Bible is true. You just hold tight, and I'll have you denying the Bible within a week.
Psychology

Hollywood, FL

#103776 Oct 6, 2012
I have some new stuff for you!:-) but if you dare, answer the above question first.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#103777 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I have some new stuff for you!:-) but if you dare, answer the above question first.
It would be more appropriate to respond to the problems with your old stuff before we move on don't you think ?
Urban Cowboy

Pompano Beach, FL

#103781 Oct 6, 2012
Psychology wrote:
If entropy is a fact, why are all the planets still alligned after billions of years, as they all rotate together?
Because it hasn't been billions of years. We are now observing the most distant reaches of the cosmos with Hubble and guess what? The galaxies at the edge are just the same as the one we're in. Blue stars are new and they should be long gone but there's still plenty of them. Planets such as Mercury are still hot which doesn't make sense in a billion year old universe. Comets are measured to last only thousands of years. Saturns rings are recent and are deteorating. Moon recession indicates a young moon. Spiral galaxies are not wound up as they must be if very old. It's obviously a young universe.
Urban Cowboy

Pompano Beach, FL

#103782 Oct 6, 2012
Dogen wrote:
Dating Between Modern Humans and Neandertals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/...
Neandertals are easily within the range of human variation alive today. They were fully human.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Pompano Beach, FL

#103783 Oct 7, 2012
The Mariner 10 spacecraft meaured the planet Mercury's magnetic field back in 1975, and then the spacecraft Messenger measured in 2008 and then again in 2011. First of all, any meaurement of a magnetic field on Mercury contradicts evolutionary expectations. Because it was expected that such a small planet "millions" of years old should no longer have one. But these three measurements show a steady decline in strength, first by a few percent at the second measurement in 2008, and then in the recent orbit in 2011 a whopping 7.8% decrease in strength since 1975.

http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust

Mercury's craters are young also, as evidence by the Blue Hollows or actively decaying volatile deposits on and off craters which proves the craters can not be millions of years old.

"Mercury does not conform to theory" and is "not the planet described in the textbooks"

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-0...

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Pompano Beach, FL

#103784 Oct 7, 2012
Evidence that Neanderthals lived hundreds of years:

"As noted earlier, Cuozzo showed by his X-ray studies of Neanderthal skulls that these were people who must have lived for hundreds of years (Cuozzo 1998a). Not only that, his computerized modeling of skull changes with age predicted development of exactly the kind of characteristics that these Neanderthal skulls displayed (Cuozzo 1998b). This meant that there had to have been some very, very old people somewhere in our history."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#103785 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Evidence that Neanderthals lived hundreds of years:
"As noted earlier, Cuozzo showed by his X-ray studies of Neanderthal skulls that these were people who must have lived for hundreds of years (Cuozzo 1998a). Not only that, his computerized modeling of skull changes with age predicted development of exactly the kind of characteristics that these Neanderthal skulls displayed (Cuozzo 1998b). This meant that there had to have been some very, very old people somewhere in our history."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/...
How about trying again with real sources?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103787 Oct 7, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it hasn't been billions of years. We are now observing the most distant reaches of the cosmos with Hubble and guess what? The galaxies at the edge are just the same as the one we're in. Blue stars are new and they should be long gone but there's still plenty of them. Planets such as Mercury are still hot which doesn't make sense in a billion year old universe. Comets are measured to last only thousands of years. Saturns rings are recent and are deteorating. Moon recession indicates a young moon. Spiral galaxies are not wound up as they must be if very old. It's obviously a young universe.
Let's deal with your "genetic entropy" first. I've asked before, and you've never given an answer, so we'll try again.

If deleterious mutations happen at a certain average rate (which they must), then we can calculate when total genetic meltdown will occur. Do the math and tell us when that will be.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min dirtclod 164,332
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 1 hr GTID62 86
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr karl44 19,063
Poll Do you believe the universe is granular? (Aug '11) 2 hr cpshrivastava 31
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 3 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) 6 hr goonsquad 162
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) May 26 DanFromSmithville 141,352
More from around the web