Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179697 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

#110892 Dec 3, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And by your words (above) you failed to ask a clear question.
Whatever.
If you were to ask a REAL question, an honest response would be given.
I encourage you to rephrase your question
An upbringing is all to obvious.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110893 Dec 3, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
An upbringing is all to obvious.

Clearly you had none.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#110894 Dec 3, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
By your words, you show no understanding or you wish to prove something. Either way, let's just call this quits and walk past each other, so to speak.
Ohhhhhh...the irony.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110895 Dec 3, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
So macroevolution as shown in nested hierarchies is not really worthy of publication or scientific is what you're saying.
Big DUH on that one!

Explaining nested hierarchies to you does not require peer reviewed publication any more than explaining basic algebra does. The nested hierarchy is a pattern of organisation, and just as self evident as any other logical structure once understood.

The peer reviewed publications would involve application of that structure to empirical evidence to see if the empirical evidence conforms to it. That is a different question, but not even worth beginning until you understand nested hierarchies.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110896 Dec 3, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, you're right, I just didn't read past the first few lines.
But I found a particle physicist that claims gravity is a theory. I already posted how to view his utube video.
Jim, there are observable phenomena - facts - such as if you drop a pen it will fall, and the moon orbits the earth. There is an observable moving together of all objects with mass. That is gravity, and its a fact.

Then there are the THEORIES of gravity which seek to EXPLAIN these observed facts. Newton's theory, Einstein's theory, perhaps even this new particle physicist has a new theory.

The theory tries to explain the facts. When it does a good job of that, and also makes testable predictions, then its a good theory. Never proven, but strongly confirmed.

The fossil record shows that the animals of 100 million years ago are far different from those of today. And the ones of today are grouped easily into nested hierarchies. These and other FACTS are explained by the THEORY of evolution.

Theory explains the facts we observe.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110897 Dec 3, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, didn't think you would understand .
But I do.

The moment Kong revealed he had the kind of education you are lacking, you immediately disliked him again.

You know, nobody here is going to knock you for not going to college. I know very clever people who didn't. You get knocked here for your illogical and insulting behavior.

And Kong did answer your question while adding more. He not only learned from both, he learned to love more learning, from both.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110898 Dec 3, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not going to make any difference. I am positive macroevolution never happened. But if you insist, I will take a look just for shts and grins. I would prefer a more professional presentation of it though. Something peer reviewed please?
Dutch can be seen as a separate language or as an extreme dialect of Old German. Old English and Flemish are extremely similar to the point of mutual intelligibility. Afrikaans is an extreme dialect of Dutch, to the point where speakers of Afrikaans cannot understand Dutch. Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish are all part of the Scandinavian group and Old Scandinavian language was mutually intelligible with old Flemish, English, and Gothic.

What a mess! Well, not really. It all makes perfect sense arranged in a nested hierarchy AND...that hierarchy conforms to the branching and gradual differentiation of these languages after population separated from each other and developed in degrees of isolation. Dutch separated from German and then Afrikaans separated from Dutch...meanwhile, of course, both German and Dutch continued to develop as well.

We see, of course, the same thing in today's life and the nested hierarchy is evident in the fossil record which shows the same divergence from modern forms as we go back in time, and ALSO, critically, convergence with contemporary forms as we go back.

Whether you like it or not, Homo erectus was more like an Australopithicus which was more like an ape, Archaeopteryx and Cynodonts were more like reptiles, so on.

Its so bloody obvious that your conviction is mere wishful thinking.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#110899 Dec 4, 2012
Pat Robertson: Young-Earth Creationism Is "Not the Bible"

Noted televangelist Pat Robertson firmly rejected young-earth creationism on "The 700 Club." As CNN reports , when asked by a viewer how to respond to those who believe "the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs," Robertson suggested his viewers should not "fight science.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/03/pat-robertso...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110900 Dec 4, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwinism and macroevolution is pure fantasy mental masturbation.
Here is a good one! After many rants on your part insisting that archaeopteryx was just a bird, undoubtedly of bird-kind, and had nothing to do with dinosaurs, I came across this from one of you fellow delusionals on another thread:

"I have posted a link to pictures that demonstrate that indeed theropods and archaeopteryx had so called wish bones that actually look nothing like a birds wishbone. Is this just something you would like to ignore?

I have invalidiated many of the so called 'bird' traits as being bird traits, meaning; IF Theropods had these features, then arch simply had theropod features, including a wish bone like a theropod and NOT a bird, teeth like a theropod and NOT like a bird, three digits with no reversed hallux like a theropod and NOT like a bird, arch had a fixed femur like a theropod and NOT like a bird.

Hence Arch is not intermediate at all. It is simply a theropod dinosaur and has all the features that connect it to theropods and none of the traits that define a modern bird, at all."

---------
You guys fail to understand that your utter conviction that archaeopteryx falls on OPPOSITE sides of an unbridgeable line, simply proves macro-evolution's point. Archie was clearly an intermediate form. You pick his bird traits, and your fellow delusional picks his therapod dinosaur traits...

And yet evolution explains all of it, easily.
Psychology

United States

#110901 Dec 4, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But I do.
The moment Kong revealed he had the kind of education you are lacking, you immediately disliked him again.
You know, nobody here is going to knock you for not going to college. I know very clever people who didn't. You get knocked here for your illogical and insulting behavior.
And Kong did answer your question while adding more. He not only learned from both, he learned to love more learning, from both.
By your words,--"But I do," you claim Kong does not understand. Huh, interesting. Of course Kong said nothing that conveyed he understood either.
Psychology

United States

#110902 Dec 4, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But I do.
The moment Kong revealed he had the kind of education you are lacking, you immediately disliked him again.
You know, nobody here is going to knock you for not going to college. I know very clever people who didn't. You get knocked here for your illogical and insulting behavior.
And Kong did answer your question while adding more. He not only learned from both, he learned to love more learning, from both.
Your deceit knows no bounds, especially not in your own mind, along with others here. I offer new thinking consistently, wheather it's what you think is wrong or right, it is a catalyst, nothing more, nothing less.

New thinking rarely just pops up, it usually needs a push. The danger for most in that push, is that they may reveal something which profits others or makes them look good or better than you. Most here have absolutely no altruism, it is all geared towards self.

With that, you can only hate what you refuse, as y'all prove, even when a person is soft and kind spoken. Go to post 109287 and read, at least to where AWI stops or a little further.

Your upbringings are very obvious.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110904 Dec 4, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Your deceit knows no bounds, especially not in your own mind, along with others here. I offer new thinking consistently, wheather it's what you think is wrong or right, it is a catalyst, nothing more, nothing less.
New thinking rarely just pops up, it usually needs a push. The danger for most in that push, is that they may reveal something which profits others or makes them look good or better than you. Most here have absolutely no altruism, it is all geared towards self.
With that, you can only hate what you refuse, as y'all prove, even when a person is soft and kind spoken. Go to post 109287 and read, at least to where AWI stops or a little further.
Your upbringings are very obvious.
Jim, your "new thinking" is usually only a catalyst for useless arguments where you end up getting upset that people have not accepted your ideas. You seem so obsessed with the need to bring a new idea that you fall on your face...you have never bothered to learn the existing ideas and WHY they are accepted.

You have not YET bothered to try and understand why Newton and Einstein not only make your spin theory irrelevant, they have developed models accurate enough to land probes on Venus and set up GPS satellite systems with pinpoint accuracy. And you think your alternative is better because only 2 out of 9 planets completely falsify it!

You want to be an "ideas man"? Well, taking on the most well researched areas of science with practitioners who have trained and researched for decades is not the place to do it! You are going to fall flat every time when you take on cosmology, physics, or biology as a complete novice.

Psychology

United States

#110905 Dec 4, 2012
You claim I have little in education, but I was proof reading medical dictation and from the time I was 7. You know nothing of my real education, by my mother. You seem very ignorant to me, but I don't treat you that way, unless and until you use such ignorance. Anymore, I just push back some, because fighting is what you want, as post 109287 makes very clear for all that read that post and then for about 2 pages farther.

This won't matter, because altruism, care and respect are not in you, unless for your petty, selfish reasons.
Psychology

United States

#110906 Dec 4, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Jim, your "new thinking" is usually only a catalyst for useless arguments where you end up getting upset that people have not accepted your ideas. You seem so obsessed with the need to bring a new idea that you fall on your face...you have never bothered to learn the existing ideas and WHY they are accepted.
You have not YET bothered to try and understand why Newton and Einstein not only make your spin theory irrelevant, they have developed models accurate enough to land probes on Venus and set up GPS satellite systems with pinpoint accuracy. And you think your alternative is better because only 2 out of 9 planets completely falsify it!
You want to be an "ideas man"? Well, taking on the most well researched areas of science with practitioners who have trained and researched for decades is not the place to do it! You are going to fall flat every time when you take on cosmology, physics, or biology as a complete novice.
So as we must all understand how spin is in everything and science has left it out of most all of its equations, you and your clique could only use name calling because I tried to formulate something from such. I expect push back and look forward to it, but all y'all had was childish nonsense.

You are ignorant people that have no imagination, stopped by your own laziness and flat earth clique. You are your own worst enemies.

Keep making excuses for yourselves, that will make you feel better huh. Oops, using name calling is what y'all rely on. Post 109287

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#110907 Dec 4, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
By your words,--"But I do," you claim Kong does not understand. Huh, interesting. Of course Kong said nothing that conveyed he understood either.
You are correct that I didn't understand what your "question" was.

~paraphrased~

You: "Who taught you?"

<<Who taught me WHAT?>>

You: "No, I mean your Mom or Dad."

This line of questioning would be like me asking you:
"What did it taste like?"
without a proper context.

I repeat:*IF* you were to ask a CLEAR, HONEST question, I'll be happy to answer honestly.
Psychology

United States

#110908 Dec 4, 2012
Ask science, when do children learn the best and the most, science should tell you, when they are at play.

Do any of you here know why?
Psychology

United States

#110909 Dec 4, 2012
Not a clue to above post? Lol, that's why ya got nuthin.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#110910 Dec 4, 2012
Psychology wrote:
You claim I have little in education, but I was proof reading medical dictation and from the time I was 7. You know nothing of my real education, by my mother. You seem very ignorant to me, but I don't treat you that way, unless and until you use such ignorance. Anymore, I just push back some, because fighting is what you want, as post 109287 makes very clear for all that read that post and then for about 2 pages farther.
This won't matter, because altruism, care and respect are not in you, unless for your petty, selfish reasons.
I only said you do not have a college education, and I also said I know many intelligent people without college educations. So you can get off your self pitying and paranoid ranting.

I also said that if you want to be taken seriously in contributing some new idea, it might pay you to learn what has been discovered before and why its considered valid. You don't need to to to college to do that. But it does help, if you can.

SPIN is a subject covered intensively in physics, and you will find equations covering angular momentum, orbital motion, and all kinds of things.(The "spin" described in quantum physics is something different.)

Altruism is not something one boasts about having, or it defeats the whole purpose.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#110911 Dec 4, 2012
Psychology wrote:
Ask science, when do children learn the best and the most, science should tell you, when they are at play.
Do any of you here know why?
That sounds great when you say it fast.

But do you have any data to back that up?

Children learn when they are ENGAGED in the learning process (i.e.: not bored, attention diverted, etc). Make the subject interesting, and the kids will soak up the information being taught.

It need not be 'play' per se. Just the subject being something they are interested in and WANT to learn more about.

That being said, some 'play' can certainly be incorporated into the lesson plans.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#110912 Dec 4, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I only said you do not have a college education, and I also said I know many intelligent people without college educations. So you can get off your self pitying and paranoid ranting.
I also said that if you want to be taken seriously in contributing some new idea, it might pay you to learn what has been discovered before and why its considered valid. You don't need to to to college to do that. But it does help, if you can.
Along those lines:

"How a janitor at the Mount Wilson Observatory measured the size of the universe.

Milton Humason, a high-school dropout who worked as a mule driver and then a janitor at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California, worked his way up to become the assistant of Edwin Hubble, whom he helped to study the spectral redshift of hundreds of galaxies."

<<more at http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astrono... ;

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) 1 min Shavin Marvin 210,123
Science News (Sep '13) 26 min Voyeur 3,629
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr scientia potentia... 152,311
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr River Tam 20,327
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 hr SoE 45,560
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
More from around the web