Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180369 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.

Johny

Seabrook, TX

#104034 Oct 8, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.


This is simplistic reasoning. When you have all the mechanisms in place that allow for the development of the fetus then you will get the adult. The problem is when you don't have all the mechanisms in place and you are relying on a roulette wheel of chance to get you the advancement. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about probability which is the root cause why you cannot get advancement. Life is designed with robustness or else it would just die out. All this points to ID, the rational view of our existence.
Johny

Seabrook, TX

#104035 Oct 8, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't really understand. I will try to keep this simple. We live on a net energy positive planet. So, not only is it an open system it is an energy positive and low entropy system.
As long as we have more energy coming in than going out (about the next 4 billion years) we have no problem with entropy.
The idea that entropy is an issue for life is a very old one and has long been discredited.
What we know for certain:
Life exists
Life evolves
Entropy, therefore, is not a limiting factor for life in the short run (billions of years at the least).
But what if life does not evolve? What if this "evolving" is preprogrammed ID to allow for life to exist? Your whole argument is built on a house of cards! What does an "energy positive planet" mean. This shows wherever you got this they did not know anything about thermo.

Level 4

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104036 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
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!'
From what I remember about astronomy, the earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, with the sun being at one foci. So we're not always at the same distance as we would be if the orbit was circular. The trajectories are well described by math and physics, which are foundational to science, and supported by direct observation. With all due respect, I'd encourage you to study and understand traditional science before offering alternatives that are largely unsupported by observation. Real science is far more intriguing than fiction and fanciful armchair speculation, and may offer a more satisfying experience than mere conjecture. I'm wholly in favor of skepticism toward science, but you should understand the concepts it before presuming to criticize them. That's just my opinion.
Psychology

United States

#104037 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology | 2 hrs ago
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read and understand that gravity falls off as a function of the distance from the center of mass to where gravity is being measured from?
It explains what is missing from you "hypothesis" (actually more like a "notion" and a rather sucky one at that).

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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#104038 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Psychology | 2 hrs ago
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read and understand that gravity falls off as a function of the distance from the center of mass to where gravity is being measured from?
It explains what is missing from you "hypothesis" (actually more like a "notion" and a rather sucky one at that).
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.
REPOST:

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.

Level 4

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104039 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
But what if life does not evolve? What if this "evolving" is preprogrammed ID to allow for life to exist? Your whole argument is built on a house of cards! What does an "energy positive planet" mean. This shows wherever you got this they did not know anything about thermo.
That's an interesting question, but I'd venture to disagree that evolution buffs have failed to consider thermodynamics, entropy or anything else. As a field of scientific inquiry, evolution is pretty well established. It might be that life is 'preprogrammed" to evolve, but if it is, scientists have yet to discover the mechanism. Maybe God is the driving force, but if so, this is beyond the scope of traditional science.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#104040 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
This is simplistic reasoning. When you have all the mechanisms in place that allow for the development of the fetus then you will get the adult. The problem is when you don't have all the mechanisms in place and you are relying on a roulette wheel of chance to get you the advancement. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about probability which is the root cause why you cannot get advancement. Life is designed with robustness or else it would just die out. All this points to ID, the rational view of our existence.

ROTFLMFAO!!!

So much ignorance pack into one post.

Level 4

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104041 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Psychology | 2 hrs ago
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read and understand that gravity falls off as a function of the distance from the center of mass to where gravity is being measured from?
It explains what is missing from you "hypothesis" (actually more like a "notion" and a rather sucky one at that).
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.
Dogen's comment on that subject is reasonably well stated. Objects are drawn toward the center of gravity, which for terrestrial onjects is the center of the earth. At the surface of the earth, objects fall toward the center. At the center of the earth, the distribution of mass is approximately equal in all directions. It's not a terribly difficult concept.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#104042 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>
But what if life does not evolve?

Life does evolve. We have observed live evolving. There is no question that live evolves. Evolution has been observed in DNA, in the fossil record, in the field and now in real time in a lab. No one acquainted with the facts can rationally deny evolution.

[QUOTE who="Johny"]<quot ed text> What if this "evolving" is preprogrammed ID to allow for life to exist?

Sounds like desperate nonsense.

[QUOTE who="Johny"]<quot ed text> Your whole argument is built on a house of cards! What does an "energy positive planet" mean. This shows wherever you got this they did not know anything about thermo.

You ignorance of basic science makes you difficult to try to teach. Unless you have just been playing stupid you are going to be much to argue with.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#104043 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Psychology | 2 hrs ago
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read and understand that gravity falls off as a function of the distance from the center of mass to where gravity is being measured from?
It explains what is missing from you "hypothesis" (actually more like a "notion" and a rather sucky one at that).
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.

This was refuted hours ago. You don't understand and you may not be capable of understanding. The fact that you eventually got that all objects fall at the same rate is the only reason I am holding out any hope.

Now, lest try a different angle. At the center of the earth you are being "pulled on" by gravity just as much as at the surface, but you would be pulled EQUALLY in all directions. As all the mass of the planet is "above" you (in every direction).

Do you understand that much?

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104044 Oct 8, 2012
Johny wrote:
<quoted text>But what if life does not evolve? What if this "evolving" is preprogrammed ID to allow for life to exist? Your whole argument is built on a house of cards! What does an "energy positive planet" mean. This shows wherever you got this they did not know anything about thermo.
What you just said is "what if life LOOKS like it evolved but was designed."

Well, what if chocolate pudding was really camel pee but it appeared EXACTLY like chocolate pudding?

See the problem?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#104045 Oct 8, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an interesting question, but I'd venture to disagree that evolution buffs have failed to consider thermodynamics, entropy or anything else. As a field of scientific inquiry, evolution is pretty well established. It might be that life is 'preprogrammed" to evolve, but if it is, scientists have yet to discover the mechanism. Maybe God is the driving force, but if so, this is beyond the scope of traditional science.

Interesting post.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#104046 Oct 8, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>That's an interesting question, but I'd venture to disagree that evolution buffs have failed to consider thermodynamics, entropy or anything else. As a field of scientific inquiry, evolution is pretty well established. It might be that life is 'preprogrammed" to evolve, but if it is, scientists have yet to discover the mechanism. Maybe God is the driving force, but if so, this is beyond the scope of traditional science.
Which is why ID is not science. Once you posit something for which there can be no falsification simply on the desire to believe it you are in the realm of fantasy.
Psychology

United States

#104047 Oct 8, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I remember about astronomy, the earth is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, with the sun being at one foci. So we're not always at the same distance as we would be if the orbit was circular. The trajectories are well described by math and physics, which are foundational to science, and supported by direct observation. With all due respect, I'd encourage you to study and understand traditional science before offering alternatives that are largely unsupported by observation. Real science is far more intriguing than fiction and fanciful armchair speculation, and may offer a more satisfying experience than mere conjecture. I'm wholly in favor of skepticism toward science, but you should understand the concepts it before presuming to criticize them. That's just my opinion.
So you can't use my hypothesis against my hypothesis, huh, neither can any of the Evo tards.

Why are you even replying with this nothingness. You act like a jealous little boy and cry on dogens shoulder about me, while you call me names.

You think you are intelligent, when in fact, you are of average intelligence. You will never get smarter, acting as you do now, but then most people hate those that are much smarter, unless the gov and media are selling them for their own sakes.

Most all people are what and how they were taught. Every school in America teaches cut and paste. You have intelligence, but your jealousy and dependency stop you from becoming very smart.

Without transparency and total truth, at least with yourself, you will be nothing more than Dogen, that you fall back on.

I know this won't matter, but hey, one never knows who's listening.

Level 4

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104048 Oct 8, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why ID is not science. Once you posit something for which there can be no falsification simply on the desire to believe it you are in the realm of fantasy.
Your point is well taken, but it might be an oversimplification to state that everyone of religious faith is in "the realm of fantasy". There are plenty of well respected scientists who manage to find a balance between scientific pursuit and religious faith.
Psychology

United States

#104049 Oct 8, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
Dogen's comment on that subject is reasonably well stated. Objects are drawn toward the center of gravity, which for terrestrial onjects is the center of the earth. At the surface of the earth, objects fall toward the center. At the center of the earth, the distribution of mass is approximately equal in all directions. It's not a terribly difficult concept.
Haay, deciet suits you as well as the other tard you rely on.

If I'm wrong idiot, you'll bring evidence. Go BS someone else moron.

Level 4

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104050 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't use my hypothesis against my hypothesis, huh, neither can any of the Evo tards.
Why are you even replying with this nothingness. You act like a jealous little boy and cry on dogens shoulder about me, while you call me names.
You think you are intelligent, when in fact, you are of average intelligence. You will never get smarter, acting as you do now, but then most people hate those that are much smarter, unless the gov and media are selling them for their own sakes.
Most all people are what and how they were taught. Every school in America teaches cut and paste. You have intelligence, but your jealousy and dependency stop you from becoming very smart.
Without transparency and total truth, at least with yourself, you will be nothing more than Dogen, that you fall back on.
I know this won't matter, but hey, one never knows who's listening.
You are original, I'll grant you that. Thanks for the chuckle.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104051 Oct 8, 2012
Wow!! Is it just me or has Jimbo really gone off the deep end the last month or so? I know he has always been a bit crazy, but lately he has been truly Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Level 4

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#104052 Oct 8, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Haay, deciet suits you as well as the other tard you rely on.
If I'm wrong idiot, you'll bring evidence. Go BS someone else moron.
I'm curious, and no offense is intended, but I'm just wondering what level of education you have. I ask this because you seem to have unconventional ideas about science, and I'm curious if this is what you learned in school.
Psychology

United States

#104053 Oct 8, 2012
Well Hung Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm curious, and no offense is intended, but I'm just wondering what level of education you have. I ask this because you seem to have unconventional ideas about science, and I'm curious if this is what you learned in school.
Show one American school that teaches something other than cut and paste.

When you can use my hypothesis against my hypothesis, then you can talk about education.

Of course so far you have given no evidence.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 18 min nanoanomaly 3,282
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 41 min Frindly 83,926
Time 1 hr Beagle 3
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Genesis Enigma 164,943
No Evidence for Creation, a Global Flood, Tower... 5 hr Dogen 42
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Wed MIDutch 1,996
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) Tue Regolith Based Li... 223,191
More from around the web