Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180279 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.

Psychology

United States

#109876 Nov 29, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay.
Remember, the word "pull" is something of a metaphor. Mass slides down the gravity "well" it creates. NET GRAVITY does not change. How the force of that gravity is applied changes. IN EFFECT an incoming mass is dragged more toward the leading edge of the mass (AS IF the center of mass had shifted that direction).
This is a very subtle effect in a relatively low mass object like the earth.(Again, see the image in the last post)
<quoted text>
Since you just play dodge the reality everytime, I'll just move on. Prove how a planets gravity well is formed and then the difference between a planets a suns and a gas planets gravity well. Then show us how you know the difference.
Psychology

United States

#109877 Nov 29, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice they never say spin affects gravity, nor that spin is necessary for gravity, nor that spin is even a COMPONENT of gravity. They refer to a warping of space-time, which, in this case, is not gravity. Here's an idea: actually READ what you're referencing. It would help you avoid using things that contradict your own argument. Of course, if you did that, you couldn't post ANYTHING.
Well this should be interesting, of gravity did not warp space- time, then what did? Gosh, you're as smart as dodger, huh.
Psychology

United States

#109878 Nov 29, 2012
In the above post," of " in the first sentence should be, "if".
Psychology

United States

#109879 Nov 29, 2012
Dodger, if mass warps space-time, what makes a gravity well form if there is no mass there?
Psychology

United States

#109880 Nov 29, 2012
Dodger, if a new gravity well forms, if a new stars gravity is forming, must it be fed by a stars matter?
Psychology

United States

#109881 Nov 29, 2012
Dodger, you claim to know everything and yet you've never brought even one new thought all your own to this board or science, why is that?
Psychology

United States

#109883 Nov 29, 2012
Tell us dodger, what makes a great thinker?
Psychology

United States

#109884 Nov 29, 2012
Can any of you others in the clique answer these questions? You are all so eager to jump on anyone that disagrees with you.

Gosh , you all must be as smart as dodger and chimney, so why don't all of you give your own answers , you know, the same way all of you pile on anyone, while one of you is speaking and losing?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109885 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
You got only part of it. We were talking about mutations, and I said no genetic mutation has been observed to result in any new, or nascent tissue, organ or limb. Perhaps I did not word that in the best of terms but what I meant was the beginning of the transformation of a new tissue, organ or limb. I never implied that I was expecting that to instantly pop into existence. I am saying, given your theory of slow gradual, incremental change, show me a case where we have some significant new emerging function or body type. This is also what we would expect to find in the fossil record. Not just isolated fossils of distinct organismal features, but rather, a set of at least 3 or beginning, intermediate, ending of...well,...anything predicted by the theory. So far this just does not exist and I doubt that it ever will.(From where I stand it is impossible!)
Good, specifics at last.

So you will agree that the sequence of gradual changes of the reptilian jaw bones witj slow, gradual, incremental change towards becoming part of the middle ear is exactly what you are looking for. Its exactly what we were looking for too, and we found it.

In the same creatures, other features of the skull and dentition were ALSO moving gradually from a typical reptilian configuration to a typical mammalian one. IN addition, their leg placement was moving from "out the sides" primitive reptile style, and harking back to the original lobe finned fish placement of these extremities, to "underneath", more efficient for motion over ground.

All the big changes recorded slowly and gradually in the fossil record, us like you demanded.

That is a "transitional" or intermediate form. So you would also have to agree these have been found (although strictly, ANY form that gave rise to later different forms is "transitional". Its not inherent in the species itself, as they are all "complete", its a question of whether they were a dead end or later forms were derived from them).

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109887 Nov 29, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell us of frame dragging, since you want to ignore the rest of the article puffer dude.
No need.

The article, just the part you posted, already talked about frame dragging and gravity as two distinct effects. Therefore it was, logically, in no way saying that spin was an essential component of gravity.

No need for me to go running on your little wild goose chases just because you fail to understand basic English and logic. The whole gravity spin things is not only idiotic, as we would expect form you always, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Psychology

United States

#109888 Nov 29, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No need.
The article, just the part you posted, already talked about frame dragging and gravity as two distinct effects. Therefore it was, logically, in no way saying that spin was an essential component of gravity.
No need for me to go running on your little wild goose chases just because you fail to understand basic English and logic. The whole gravity spin things is not only idiotic, as we would expect form you always, it has nothing to do with evolution.
Gosh, then you mean those scientists were stupid for using the word spin? Why did they use the word spin in their work, do enlighten us chimney and tell us what spin was used in conjunction with.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109889 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it's impossible because macroevolution never happened. Think about how little I am asking for. Just a set of three: The initial (separated by time), then the transitional (separated by time), then the final. That's it. Notice I haven't even specified the amount of time in between. With the supposed millions of species of plants and animals out there, and the millions of years of evolution and fossil formation, the theory predicted that we should easily see this evidence in the fossil record as Darwin stated, but it never happened because macroevolution never happened.
1. Reptile - 7 jaw bones.
2. Synapsids
2. Therapsid mammal-like reptiles such as Morganucodon, where the same bones are squeezed to the back and performing JAW and EAR functions simultaneously!
3. True Mammal, where the same bones are now 3+3 in the ear and 1 remaining in the jaw.

Transformations showing in the fossil record:

7 boned jaw changing in stages to 1 jaw and 3+3 to middle ear
Dentition becoming more complex and differentiated

Timescale transitions are found in: 250 -> 180 million years ago.

No creature remotely like a therapsid or a mammal is ever found in Carboniferous, Cambrian, or Pre-Cambrian rock. The earliest they appear is the late Permian.

Really, you cannot demand your cake and not eat it Urb!
Psychology

United States

#109890 Nov 29, 2012
What's wrong chimney, you can't answer any of the other questions?
Psychology

United States

#109891 Nov 29, 2012
This might give y'all a taste of what y'all do to everyone that isn't just like you, only one person does it to all of you, instead of you all against one.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109892 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The appendix was once wrongly thought vestigial by the Darwinists. But now we know it provides good bacteria to help digest our food.
Which is why it did not disappear entirely, like the external tail. Its still a bit useful, but merely a vestige of what it was in our ancestors.(vestigial, get it?)

The tail on the other hand is long gone and the only time it reappears in freak cases - some with cartilaginous vertebrae and working musculature - it reminds us about another evolutionary note, the atavism. HUMANS never get "atavistic feathers" because nothing with feathers was ever on out evolutionary line. But they DO get atavistic tails, because tails were. Likewise some whales have atavistic hind limbs, some horses have atavistic extra toes.

It all points to evolution, and evolution explains it easily. Ex nihilo creation does not.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109893 Nov 29, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, then you mean those scientists were stupid for using the word spin? Why did they use the word spin in their work, do enlighten us chimney and tell us what spin was used in conjunction with.
No, the scientists were not stupid. At first, actually, I would not have called you stupid either, it was just a hypothesis you presented. But it was refuted by the fact that we know Newton and Einstein described gravity perfectly well using mass and distance, not spin, and this was explained to you.

But your desperate attempts to twist every quote you can find in favour of your discredited hypothesis, and refusal to understand WHY spin is not a necessary component of gravity - now THAT is STUPID!

The point is, the SMART thing to do when an idea does not stack up is to let it go, Jimbo. Might even clear your thinking to let a new idea in, and one of these days, one of them might be a good one.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#109894 Nov 29, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good, specifics at last.
So you will agree that the sequence of gradual changes of the reptilian jaw bones witj slow, gradual, incremental change towards becoming part of the middle ear is exactly what you are looking for. Its exactly what we were looking for too, and we found it.
In the same creatures, other features of the skull and dentition were ALSO moving gradually from a typical reptilian configuration to a typical mammalian one. IN addition, their leg placement was moving from "out the sides" primitive reptile style, and harking back to the original lobe finned fish placement of these extremities, to "underneath", more efficient for motion over ground.
All the big changes recorded slowly and gradually in the fossil record, us like you demanded.
That is a "transitional" or intermediate form. So you would also have to agree these have been found (although strictly, ANY form that gave rise to later different forms is "transitional". Its not inherent in the species itself, as they are all "complete", its a question of whether they were a dead end or later forms were derived from them).
OK, so your claim is that the initial is a reptile's jaw bone and the final is the Mammal middle ear bone. What is the transitional again? What is your evidence of this? How could the reptile/mammal transitional eat if it lost it's jaw bone on the way to becoming a mammal middle ear bone? How could the transitional reptile-mammal ear or eat if it doesn't have either? What is the name of this reptile-mammal hybrid who is in the middle of losing a jaw bone and gaining a middle ear bone? How could something that was functioning as a jaw bone transition into a complex hearing mechanism which is dependent on hundreds of supporting hearing, nerve, muscle, supportive secretions, pressure systems, etc.? Show me.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109895 Nov 29, 2012
Psychology wrote:
The answer is a spinning planets gravity.

I think a better answer would be that any spinning object with mass warps space-time, in a non-linear way, in 4 dimensions.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109896 Nov 29, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it's impossible because macroevolution never happened. Think about how little I am asking for. Just a set of three: The initial (separated by time), then the transitional (separated by time), then the final. That's it. Notice I haven't even specified the amount of time in between. With the supposed millions of species of plants and animals out there, and the millions of years of evolution and fossil formation, the theory predicted that we should easily see this evidence in the fossil record as Darwin stated, but it never happened because macroevolution never happened.
Now that you have digested the 3-boned middle ear, shall we delve into the appearance of feathers on Avian dinosaurs, and the gradual transition of some of these to flight?

Or the emergence of a line of increasingly aquatic mammals that led to whales?

Perhaps even the splendid sequence of early to late hominids with growing brains, shrinking jaws and teeth, etc, illustrating the transition from ape to man that Darwin and his contemporaries could only PREDICT based on the PRINCIPLES of evolution, but we now have solid EVIDENCE for, confirming the prediction. You going to do the usual and choose the most fragmentary of these finds to try to discredit all of them?

I expect so.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#109897 Nov 29, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Science is adding spin into gravity and its lexicon slowly. There ain't no stoppin it now.

Um,.... no.

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 min Aura Mytha 1,194
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Into The Night 52,117
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min USAUSAUSA 218,817
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 min Dogen 24,870
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 22 min Dogen 475
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Timmee 157,718
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web