Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178696 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

Seffner, FL

#104526 Oct 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
With respect to plate tectonics, what question is science avoiding Evo children?
Funny. Spend a lot of time around elementary school playgrounds picking up tips on how to be childish, do you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104527 Oct 12, 2012
Psychology wrote:
See there Evo morons, even when you are given warning, you just trample through without a care in your head. You're frikken morons that claim to be right about everything, when you have little more than copy and paste and deciet.
Alright Evo morons, ya just couldn't do your homework.
First off one guy named Harry Hess, claimed,
The size of the Earth has not changed significantly during the past 600 million years, and very likely not since shortly after its formation 4.6 billion years ago. The Earth's unchanging size implies that the crust must be destroyed at about the same rate as it is being created, as Harry Hess surmised. Such destruction (recycling) of crust takes place along convergent boundaries where plates are moving toward each other, and sometimes one plate sinks (is subducted) under another. The location where sinking of a plate occurs is called a subduction zone.
I challenge!
So, if the plates in subduction zones are passing over and under, which plate is being added too and which plate is being subtracted from and where is the evidence? Come on Evo children, don't run away.
Really!? You have to ask this question? Do you think that other people are as big of an idiot as you are? Wait, yes, we know that the king of projection does believe this.

Since several have already told you the answer, that spreading occurs at the oceanic ridges I am going to ask you only one question. Haven't you heard of "Divergence Zones"? Those are the plate tectonic opposite of mes, "Subduction Zones".

I love it when Jimbo calls everyone else a moron and proves himself to be one in that very post.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#104528 Oct 12, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I appear to be in good company. Not one scientist has ever declined a Nobel Prize. I wonder why?
So you trust Al Gore to lecture you on science?

"For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...
Elohim

Branford, CT

#104529 Oct 12, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I am a creationismist tool.
LOL

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#104530 Oct 12, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text> LOL
LOL.....Hey!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#104531 Oct 12, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So you trust Al Gore to lecture you on science?
"For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/20...

Al Gore was not a science teacher. Al Gore brought attention to an important environmental problem. It was in that capacity that he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#104532 Oct 12, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>Satan put them there to test the faith of the True Believers.
Heh!

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104533 Oct 12, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me guess,
'The planet has always changed climate'- irrelevant
'Its all a tax scamming conspiracy'- so tax on tobacco proves it doesn't cause cancer
'CO2 is minute proportion of atmosphere'- irrelevant
'Its the sun'- look up warming of troposphere and stratosphere
I do wonder if the arguments against AGW in a few decades will be viewed in the same ways as the arguments against ToE - I.e. scientifically illiterate
I think there's a lot more economic politics involved in global warming than in ID. While global warming itself seems to be undeniable, the cause of global warming is still debatable.

There is still a significant portion of "old technology" that sees their share of the economic pie as being threatened, and much of "new technology" that is competing for that same pie share. They both hire legions of lawyers and scientists to offset the other's evidence. It seems that objective science is leaning towards new technology, but there is also gross oversimplification on both sides.
wong londo

Jakarta, Indonesia

#104534 Oct 12, 2012
evolution means your grand parents were monkeys

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#104535 Oct 12, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
All I know is the whole Nobel thing is a joke.
Apparently, something is a "joke" merely when you disagree with it. Unfortunately for you, that definition of "joke" does not appear in any well regarded dictionary.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#104536 Oct 12, 2012
wong londo wrote:
evolution means your grand parents were monkeys
Do you subscribe to any excellent creationist journals?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104537 Oct 12, 2012
wong londo wrote:
evolution means your grand parents were monkeys
Not your grandparents, but if you add enough "great"s in front of "grandparents" the answer is yes. The ancestor that we share with monkeys would be called a monkey today. Technically we are still monkeys. Of course technically we are still mammals, even if you do feed your baby on formula only.

Do you have a problem with that?

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#104538 Oct 12, 2012
wong londo wrote:
evolution means your grand parents were monkeys
We share 99% of our DNA with bonobos and chimps. This is a fact. This is not even debatable.

While we are closely related to apes and monkeys, you have to go back many millions of years to find a common ancestor, however.

The reason why we look different from bonobos and chimps despite having 99% of our DNA in common has to do with gene regulation, i.e. when genes are turned off and on.

For a long time, including when I was in college and studying genetics, it was thought that much of our DNA was "junk DNA." We have now learned that such "junk DNA" is very important to gene expression. By simply controlling the timing of the activation and deactivation of various genes you can have two very closely related species that appear and act very differently.

To deny evolution is akin to denying that the earth is round. There is so much evidence for its existence and if you understand genetics, there is no way it could not happen.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104539 Oct 12, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
He's an idiot and Global Climate Change is a joke which makes the Nobel a joke as well.
Global Climate Change is not a joke, though its causes are still debatable. It might be true that global warming would be with us even without burning of fossil fuels. There is evidence that the earth has gone through many long term dramactic climate changes in the past and that this is just one more.

Aside from the economic battle involving technological forces, there is also the social-political battle of getting nations to do something about the problem. Those who say, "it's not our fault" have less motivation to do something about it. Others say that it doesn't matter if it's our fault or not, something has to be done.

My feeling is that we need to do whatever we can to abate the probems of global warming, and that if guilt works better than pure science as motivator, so be it. So I hold my nose and say, "go for it Al Gore."

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#104540 Oct 12, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the poster child and patron saint of the Dunning-Krugger effect.
But you can change that by learning more than talking.
When I read Jimbo's posts, this is all I hear: http://youtu.be/KMkCPCWbmZk
Elohim

Branford, CT

#104541 Oct 12, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.....Hey!
Did you get up this way for leaf peeping? Just about peak here along the Long Island Sound.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#104542 Oct 12, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I appear to be in good company. Not one scientist has ever declined a Nobel Prize. I wonder why?
Now you claim a Nobel Prize. Why am I not surprised?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#104543 Oct 12, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Have your little tea. I could debunk evolution on a daily basis. Next up? The lack of seafloor sediment. We know the rate of accumulation. So where is all the sediment? At the current rate, the current thickness of seafloor sediment would accumulate in less than 12 million years. After 3 billion years, we would expect to see 250 times more sidiment that we see today. What about that? What will be your rescue theory for this?
The ocean floor is a lot more variable than land above sea level. Sediments tend to collect in some places and become washed away in other places.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free...

There are many places in the ocean floor that show a thin accumulation of sediments. Creationists try to use these as evidence of a young earth.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#104544 Oct 12, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
We share 99% of our DNA with bonobos and chimps. This is a fact. This is not even debatable.
Why is it not debatable? Prove it first. What percent of protein do we share with chimps? Twenty percent?

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#104545 Oct 12, 2012
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text> Did you get up this way for leaf peeping? Just about peak here along the Long Island Sound.
No, I'm afraid not. Couldn't get away from work. Maybe next year! Are you on the Connecticut side or the Long Island side? Must be nice. We did however, get some clear, cool, dry weather down here in Miami....finally! Slept with the windows open last night.

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) 5 min Dogen 173,740
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 34 min Chimney1 143,933
News Intelligent design 9 hr FREE SERVANT 23
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Sun Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Sun Chimney1 583
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory Sun Paul Porter1 421
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? Sun Paul Porter1 56
More from around the web