Should evolution be taught in high school?

[MikeF]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Creationist propaganda doesn't count as evidence.

FIFY

[MikeF]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

What did apes evolve from? And what did that evolve from? And that? And that? And that? Ha ha ha! Dummies!

Late night, Urb?

[MikeF]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

Isn't it telling that no ape can speak a single word of language? And that's after a lifetime of learning with humans? But parrots can!

Physical limitation. Dun.

[MikeF]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
No really, it makes sense. The older you get, the more you start looking like like a neanderthal. Can you imagine what we'd look like if we lived hundreds of years? This guy does brilliant research and you don't appreciate it because it threatens your ideology. Pity. Stay stupid.

You and a dentist. Impressive.

{{{snicker}}}

[Urban Cowboy]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
You and a dentist. Impressive.
{{{snicker}}}

What is that supposed to mean? You're just going to mock him simply because he doesn't agree with your beliefs? Cuozzo is a brilliant, successful doctor, author, and paleontology researcher.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bio...

[Shakespeare]

Evolution shouldn't be taught ,Period !! It has absolutely no solid foundation but is based on a few fragments of "speculation"
Creation teachings on the other hand is based on what we see.

[Dogen]

monkey for evonuts wrote:

<quoted text>Why?such a lame reply, in other words you don't have an answer because is so complicated for the ego scientist brain to explain simple even microscopic single celled organisms-are incredibly complex.there is no proof that any kind of life has ever arisen by chance or ever could.rather all living things bear unmistakable evidence of design by an intelligence far greater than our own. Something so complex as how nothing,dust(non-living matter) came to exist and become living organisms.

What an ignorant reply. You were given a lucid understanding of how science basically works and you respond with tidbits of nonsense. You clearly have not read anything on abiogenesis so you go with your creation myths. That is fine for you.

[Subduction Zone]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

What did apes evolve from? And what did that evolve from? And that? And that? And that? Ha ha ha! Dummies!

Oh noes!! Urban Cowflop has been learning debating techniques from forreal. Oh well I guess there is only one way to beat this point.

Ha! You are an even Biggier Dummy LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!

[MikeF]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
What is that supposed to mean? You're just going to mock him simply because he doesn't agree with your beliefs? Cuozzo is a brilliant, successful doctor, author, and paleontology researcher.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bio...

No. Because he doesn't agree with the consensus of scientists who are experts on the subject. My 'beliefs' are immaterial.

And Answers in Genesis is the weakest possible support to offer.

[Subduction Zone]

Shakespeare wrote:

Evolution shouldn't be taught ,Period !! It has absolutely no solid foundation but is based on a few fragments of "speculation"
Creation teachings on the other hand is based on what we see.

Thanks, I needed to start off the day with a good laugh.

Yes, we never see evolution. We don't see it in the lab, we don't see it in the field, we don't see it in the fossil record. Yet we see god walking down the street every day going -poof- daisy,-poof- puppy,-poof- deadly ebola virus,-POOOOF- huge Blue Whale, God sits down and pants for a few seconds and then starts walking and poofing again.

[Dogen]

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.

Haldane's Dilemma refers to a limit on the speed of beneficial evolution, first calculated by J. B. S. Haldane in 1957, and clarified further by later commentators. Creationists, and proponents of intelligent design in particular, claim it remains unresolved. Contrary to creationist claims, Haldane's dilemma is of no importance in the evolutionary genetics literature. Today, Haldane's Dilemma is raised mostly by creationists opposed to evolution, who claim it is evidence against large-scale evolution, and a supposed example of negligence on the part of the scientific community.

Were do you dredge up these old tired tidbits from yesteryear?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dile...

Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly. The creationist claim is based on further errors and invalid assumptions.

Game, set, match, tennis!

[Urban Cowboy]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh noes!! Urban Cowflop has been learning debating techniques from forreal. Oh well I guess there is only one way to beat this point.
Ha! You are an even Biggier Dummy LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!

Can't answer the question, can you?

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's put it this way. The ones who still believe in the neo-Darwinian fairy tale have either not bothered to carefully think it through, or are just incapable or unwilling to do so, which is either dishonesty or incompetence or both. There are probably many closet dissenters of which it would behoove them not to reveal their true feelings for fear of castigation. Then there are the multitudes of minions who are clueless about science but love the idea so lovingly drink the koolaid and swallow the pablum eagerly in ignorant bliss. And then there might be a few honest but stubborn and short-sighted scientists out there that accept the theory of evolution regarding origins and macroevolution must be true against all the odds, logic, facts, and evidence against it, but trully believes it is only matter of time before they find the answers. Then there are the lucky ones that not only realize it wrong but also had the courage to break the chains of Darwinian slavery and discover the true science of Creation.

You rationalize quite the invisible empire.

The fact is that evolution is proven to be true.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the environment.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the lab.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the genome.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the fossil record.
The fact is that evolution has been tested.
The fact is that evolution studies have been replicated.
The fact is that evolution is falsifiable but has never been falsified.
The fact is that evolution make predictions that are found to be true.
The fact is that evolution is supported by an array of different scientific fields.
The fact is that evolution is supported by millions of scientists.
The fact is that evolution is taught at nearly all major Christian Universities.
The fact is that evolution is based on the facts.

It is also a fact that creationism is NOT science.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT observable.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT testable.
It is also a fact that creationism does not make predictions.
It is also a fact that creationism is not replicable.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT falsifiable.
........

Epic crush that you never been able to address with EVIDENCE.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Evotarded propaganda doesn't count as evidence.

You lose. Pick your poison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dile...

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/haldanes-dil...

http://chimerasthebooks.blogspot.com/2011/11/...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...


Haldane was refuted by Haldane!!!

[Urban Cowboy]

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
No. Because he doesn't agree with the consensus of scientists who are experts on the subject. My 'beliefs' are immaterial.
And Answers in Genesis is the weakest possible support to offer.

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.

[Subduction Zone]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Can't answer the question, can you?

I could look up who we descended from. So, yes, if I cared to i could answer the question. You seemed to think you were making some sort of point, instead you sounded like the current winner of the idiot race on Topix.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

What did apes evolve from? And what did that evolve from? And that? And that? And that? Ha ha ha! Dummies!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryopithecus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate_evolutio...

All moot however, as we already know evolution is a fact.

[Urban Cowboy]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
You lose. Pick your poison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dile...
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/haldanes-dil...
http://chimerasthebooks.blogspot.com/2011/11/...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Haldane was refuted by Haldane!!!

Rubbish. Come up with some actual research and we'll talk.

[Subduction Zone]

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
You rationalize quite the invisible empire.
The fact is that evolution is proven to be true.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the environment.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the lab.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the genome.
The fact is that evolution is observable in the fossil record.
The fact is that evolution has been tested.
The fact is that evolution studies have been replicated.
The fact is that evolution is falsifiable but has never been falsified.
The fact is that evolution make predictions that are found to be true.
The fact is that evolution is supported by an array of different scientific fields.
The fact is that evolution is supported by millions of scientists.
The fact is that evolution is taught at nearly all major Christian Universities.
The fact is that evolution is based on the facts.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT science.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT observable.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT testable.
It is also a fact that creationism does not make predictions.
It is also a fact that creationism is not replicable.
It is also a fact that creationism is NOT falsifiable.
........
Epic crush that you never been able to address with EVIDENCE.

Ow! Clear, concise and true. It needs to be reposted several times here.

[Dogen]

Urban Cowboy wrote:

Isn't it telling that no ape can speak a single word of language? And that's after a lifetime of learning with humans? But parrots can!

They don't have the voice box to do more than grunt. They can learn sign language, however and develop unique combinations of words and even make up signs they teach to their human trainer.

They still can't have a meaningful discussion of Plato's allegory of the cave, but most humans can't either.