Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180388 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.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104005 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason I question evolution is because I do understand the science. It is in direct conflict with the Second Law of Thermo. There is no clear lineage defined and it continually grows more murky (evolutionary tree). There exists the information problem. There is the probability problem. It is even logical to say that "evolution" is hijacking design, for every proof of evolution can be looked at as evidence for design! MIDutch, don't get high and mighty, but let us acknowledge the little evidence that exists for evolution and call mainline scientists to task for their dishonesty in inflating and twisting the evidence!
Johnny, you already made this claim once the other day and it was addressed. You can't claim evolution is wrong cuz all life is dead therefore life is alive and still be called honest.

So why is it you creationists ALWAYS have to lie?

Same again next week?

Thought so.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104006 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
So the sun supplies all of earths energy, yes or no?
The earth is a sub-system of the solar system. The solar system is a sub-system of our galaxy. Etc., Etc., Etc..........Etc.
Psychology

United States

#104007 Oct 8, 2012
My theory trumps present theory, but hey, the morons controlling don't care,

You cannot use my theory against itself, which is the only way to disprove it.

Suck on that morons!'

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 
Psychology

United States

#104008 Oct 8, 2012
Morons don't address the subjects.

If our sun disappeared, our solar system would die and float off into space.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#104009 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
The reason I question evolution is because I do understand the science. It is in direct conflict with the Second Law of Thermo.
How so?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104010 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
If there were no sun, what would power planet earth?
The earth would not exist in its present form. But all the energy would still be present in our region of space.
Psychology

United States

#104011 Oct 8, 2012
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/conten ...

Hey Evo children, look what I found. It proves you are lying morons, but we all knew that.

Y'all claim that gravity is stronger at the center of earth.

The following comes from Physicists at Cambridge.

Another lie and loss for the evotards.

So when you burrow down into the Earth, the gravitational forces are cancelling out and that means there must be a weaker gravitational field down inside the Earth than there is on the surface.
Psychology

United States

#104012 Oct 8, 2012
Talk monkey, just try to show proof. Hahahahahahaha
Johny

Seabrook, TX

#104013 Oct 8, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Johnny, you already made this claim once the other day and it was addressed. You can't claim evolution is wrong cuz all life is dead therefore life is alive and still be called honest.
So why is it you creationists ALWAYS have to lie?
Same again next week?
Thought so.
I missed the post. The second law is concerned about equilibrium, spontaneous and nonspontaneous processes, mechanisms and flow of entropy. The statements of the Second Law concern open systems so the notion that it applies to only closed systems is just that - bunk. The second law is very much in play with living systems and fights the supposed "evolutionary" advancement every step of the way. Point me to the post and I will respond to it. Thanks.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104014 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Haldane (1957) calculated that it would take 300 generations to select a single new mutation to fixation. This is called Haldane's dilemma because it is too slow for any macroevolution to be feasible. At this rate you can only fix 1,000 unlinked nucleotide mutations in 6 million years, the supposed time humans diverged from chimps.
This simple fact was confirmed by Crow and Kimura (1970) and ReMine (1993,2005). This is less information than is in this comment (if it were 333 characters long). There is no way possible for this tiny amount of information to turn an ape into a human. And this is only for independent, unlinked mutations. Selection for 1,000 specific and adjancent mutations could not arise in 6 billion years. And the more nucleotides under selection, the slower the progress.
We know that man and chimp differ by about 150 million nucleotide positions due to at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). Therefore if man evolved from ape, there must have been 20 million nucleotide fixations. But natural selection could only account for 1,000, that means all the rest must have been fixed by genetic drift. That's 19,999,000 deleterious mutations and 1,000 beneficial ones, which of course would obviously have killed us.
This is based on Sanford's Genetic Entropy, Pages 128-130.
A reasonable conclusion is that Haldane was using faulty data.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.h...

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104016 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
By the way, the earth would stop spinning and rotating and it would just float into the void.
An uncountable number of "what-ifs" can be generated. What if the oceans went away, what if the sun doubled in size, what if all mammals suddenly grew scales, etc.???? If things were different, things would be different.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104017 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
What did apes evolve from? And what did that evolve from? And that? And that? And that? Ha ha ha! Dummies!
UC, you are devolving. Take your meds. It's the responsible thing to do.
Psychology

United States

#104018 Oct 8, 2012
No evidence from the Evo morons
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104019 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
I missed the post. The second law is concerned about equilibrium, spontaneous and nonspontaneous processes, mechanisms and flow of entropy. The statements of the Second Law concern open systems so the notion that it applies to only closed systems is just that - bunk. The second law is very much in play with living systems and fights the supposed "evolutionary" advancement every step of the way. Point me to the post and I will respond to it. Thanks.
Then entropy would prevent you from developing from a fetus to an adult.

If it does not, AND if it does not stop you from reproducing, then it does not affect evolution. Sorry.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104020 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
No evidence from the Evo morons
Plenty. You just haven't been able to deal with it yet.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104021 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey dogshit, as always, you're a lying moron.
Hey Evo children, look what I found. It proves you are lying morons, but we all knew that.
Y'all claim that gravity is stronger at the center of earth.
The following comes from Physicists at Cambridge.
Another lie and loss for the evotards.
So when you burrow down into the Earth, the gravitational forces are cancelling out and that means there must be a weaker gravitational field down inside the Earth than there is on the surface.
Ah shaddap Jimbo.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104022 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all just made up to fit the theory. There isn't any evidence. You've been brainwashed.
....So pick it apart if you can. Do you ever stop and wonder why so many scientists agree with each other?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#104023 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
The statements of the Second Law concern open systems...
How so?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#104024 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Hey Evo children, look what I found. It proves you are lying morons, but we all knew that.
Y'all claim that gravity is stronger at the center of earth.
The following comes from Physicists at Cambridge.
Another lie and loss for the evotards.
So when you burrow down into the Earth, the gravitational forces are cancelling out and that means there must be a weaker gravitational field down inside the Earth than there is on the surface.
Mmmmmm....Nooooo.

Near as I can recall, we said that gravity compells objects to fall IN THE DIRECTION of the center of the earth.

The rest of your copy/paste (didn't think we overlooked THAT, did you?) is correct.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104025 Oct 8, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you compound your error with another error. What's next? When does his actual work count? You won't even consider any information from a source unless it is sanctioned by the gatekeepers of your affinity group? It's evolution-only and no other ideas allowed, isn't that right? Alternatives are not only not allowed, they are mocked and ridiculed. That is not science, that's ideology.
The irony of a Creationist accusing someone of being ideological is stunning.

When a source, such as AIG, demonstrates over and over that it considers intellectual rigor to be bothersome we can dispense with the trouble of giving it a second thought.

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
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 1 min THE LONE WORKER 262
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 min Nemesis 167
Evidence that no god exists 4 min Nemesis 6
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 37 min Science 75,060
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Genesis Enigma 162,035
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 4 hr yehoshooah adam 4,067
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 hr Nemesis 221,490
More from around the web