Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179706 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111190 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly.
Problem is, it's sociology and politics that are the problem, NOT evolution. Evolution is in no way related to what happened during the holocaust.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111191 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. YOu might want to mention that to your buddies when they declare jurisdiction over all the sciences.
WTF?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#111192 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Completely different situation. This is like comparing a court ordered execution to a criminal homicide.
Or a mythical situation.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#111193 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. YOu might want to mention that to your buddies when they declare jurisdiction over all the sciences.
They don't. Evolution doesn't cover all the sciences, but the sciences, most of them, present evidence that concurs with the theory of evolution.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111194 Dec 6, 2012
The energy source (The Sun) for the entire food chain/web (producers-consumers-decompose rs) is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as well as those ecosystems that get their energy from hydrothermal vents, because the geological mechanism, i.e., friction, that causes those vents is also weakening and deteriorating over time, just like everything else.

The development and growth of an organism is not an exception because the organism is already alive - and obeys the law: life only comes from life - and its biological mechanisms are just following the genetically coded instructions, as this will continue as long as it lives (if it can avoid disease) and continues with healthy celluar respiration and reproduces successfully and continues to receive proper sunlight, water, nourishment, ect.

However, whenever the organism reproduces offspring (or exposed to permanent harmful radiation) and during cellular replication, genetic mutations occur due to copying errors and deleterious mutations accumulate with each generation.(For humans, the rate is about 60 new muatations per generation, none of which have ever been documented to create any new or nascent limb or organ).

Therefore, this time arrow is a one-way, dead-end street toward increased entropy and eventual genetic meltdown, the same as it is everywhere and with everything else in the universe. So if the orignal genomes of species were fresh and new in the beginning, they have been slowly deteriorating over time due to the accumulation of errors and this shows that macroevolution could have never happened.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111195 Dec 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF?
WTF?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111196 Dec 6, 2012
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think opinions are ok. I have some wierd opinions of my own. But science has to stick with the evidence.
One of my favorite opinions is that maybe "life" was one of the dimensions of the original singularity our universe came from. Seems to me to be just as likely as anything else. But sorry, no evidence.
Curious, where did these life dimensions come from?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111197 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. YOu might want to mention that to your buddies when they declare jurisdiction over all the sciences.
You mean like when Creation.com does when they state in their website:

"1.The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

http://creation.com/about-us

Or Answers in Genesis?

"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

....those are the first two that jump to mind, but I'm sure the above quotes reflect the mindset of yourself and the majority of other Fundimentalists.

Which would make your initial comment a bit hypocritical, no?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#111198 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF?
Exactly. What the hell is this crap?
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. YOu might want to mention that to your buddies when they declare jurisdiction over all the sciences.
Jurisdiction over all the sciences? Is it because when you run out of valid responses you have to make shit up?
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111199 Dec 6, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like when Creation.com does when they state in their website:
"1.The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."
http://creation.com/about-us
Or Answers in Genesis?
"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
....those are the first two that jump to mind, but I'm sure the above quotes reflect the mindset of yourself and the majority of other Fundimentalists.
Which would make your initial comment a bit hypocritical, no?
I whole-heartily agree with those statements. How does that make us hypocritical? We are being honest and upfront about our beliefs.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111200 Dec 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. What the hell is this crap?
<quoted text>
Jurisdiction over all the sciences? Is it because when you run out of valid responses you have to make shit up?
Yes, you guys do it. Tell you what, I point it out next time.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#111201 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I whole-heartily agree with those statements. How does that make us hypocritical? We are being honest and upfront about our beliefs.
But...aren't YOU the one who said:
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. YOu might want to mention that to your buddies when they declare jurisdiction over all the sciences.
Then you declare (by way of the words of AiG and Creation.com ), that YOU and your fellow Creationists have jurisdiction over all the sciences? AND history?

Really?!?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111202 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't answer goofy question to people who have no idea what they are talking about. Chimney, it is clear that you are clueless about the Bible.
Stop evading the question.

The Hebrews were ordered to slaughter the Midianites down to the mothers and little boys. By Moses? By God? By Moses supposedly in God's name?

It does not matter. If God himself told you, UC, to slaughter a little child, I hope like hell you would have the humanity and balls to refuse Him.

Any Jew who followed the command of Moses was no better than any German who marched Jews into the gas chambers. You might think the patina of ancientness somehow makes these distant event less real, but the little boy slain at the hands of one of Moses' zealots is no less real than the little boy shoved into a gas chamber.

Think about it, idiot, and forget your cult for a moment.

Its the same damned thing. Genocide. Inspired by God, apparently, not Darwin.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111203 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
The energy source (The Sun) for the entire food chain/web (producers-consumers-decompose rs) is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as well as those ecosystems that get their energy from hydrothermal vents, because the geological mechanism, i.e., friction, that causes those vents is also weakening and deteriorating over time, just like everything else.
The development and growth of an organism is not an exception because the organism is already alive - and obeys the law: life only comes from life - and its biological mechanisms are just following the genetically coded instructions, as this will continue as long as it lives and continues with healthy celluar respiration and reproduces and continues to receive proper sunlight, water, nourishment, ect.
However, when the organism reproduces and during cellular replication, genetic mutations occur and accumulate with each generation.(For humans, the rate is about 60 new muatations per generation) Therefore, this time arrow is a one-way, dead-end street toward increased entropy and eventual genetic meltdown, the same as it is everywhere and with everything else in the universe.
Sorry, dingbat pseudoscientist idiot, life also obeys the 2nd law. There are no exceptions. The fully developed chick about to hatch is both more complex and higher entropy than the relatively simple egg it came from. You are confusing two different things.

Evolution also happens to obey the 2nd law.

Of course, I mean the actual second law, not your dumbass cartoon version of it. How about them Midianites then? Seems they obeyed the FIRST LAW - slaughter of little children is acceptable to dogmatists if you can invent a good reason for it. Cheers UC, hope to hell God never whispers something in YOUR ear.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#111204 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
The energy source (The Sun) for the entire food chain/web (producers-consumers-decompose rs) is subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as well as those ecosystems that get their energy from hydrothermal vents, because the geological mechanism, i.e., friction, that causes those vents is also weakening and deteriorating over time, just like everything else.
The development and growth of an organism is not an exception because the organism is already alive - and obeys the law: life only comes from life - and its biological mechanisms are just following the genetically coded instructions, as this will continue as long as it lives (if it can avoid disease) and continues with healthy celluar respiration and reproduces successfully and continues to receive proper sunlight, water, nourishment, ect.
However, whenever the organism reproduces offspring (or exposed to permanent harmful radiation) and during cellular replication, genetic mutations occur due to copying errors and deleterious mutations accumulate with each generation.(For humans, the rate is about 60 new muatations per generation, none of which have ever been documented to create any new or nascent limb or organ).
Therefore, this time arrow is a one-way, dead-end street toward increased entropy and eventual genetic meltdown, the same as it is everywhere and with everything else in the universe. So if the orignal genomes of species were fresh and new in the beginning, they have been slowly deteriorating over time due to the accumulation of errors and this shows that macroevolution could have never happened.
You're forgetting natural selection (life) which weeds out the deleterious genes leaving only the fittest.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#111205 Dec 6, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Urb's excellent creationist journals. And his bible, of course.
No real evidence then. He has that going for him, plus evolution of the daea apparently.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111206 Dec 6, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, dingbat pseudoscientist idiot, life also obeys the 2nd law. There are no exceptions. The fully developed chick about to hatch is both more complex and higher entropy than the relatively simple egg it came from. You are confusing two different things.
Evolution also happens to obey the 2nd law.
Of course, I mean the actual second law, not your dumbass cartoon version of it. How about them Midianites then? Seems they obeyed the FIRST LAW - slaughter of little children is acceptable to dogmatists if you can invent a good reason for it. Cheers UC, hope to hell God never whispers something in YOUR ear.
Dude, get hold of yourself!
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111207 Dec 6, 2012
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
You're forgetting natural selection (life) which weeds out the deleterious genes leaving only the fittest.
But the mutations continue to accumulate and if there is close family inbreeding, the recessive genes will surface and cause disease.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

#111208 Dec 6, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
But...aren't YOU the one who said:
<quoted text>
Then you declare (by way of the words of AiG and Creation.com ), that YOU and your fellow Creationists have jurisdiction over all the sciences? AND history?
Really?!?
I still don't see the corollary. How are we being hypocritical?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111209 Dec 6, 2012
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
But the mutations continue to accumulate and if there is close family inbreeding, the recessive genes will surface and cause disease.
In that case either of two things happen, the "bad" genes get selected out faster. Or the species changes so that the "bad" genes are not bad anymore.

Here is one example. Is sickle cell anemia the result of a "bad" mutation?

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) 19 min U Have Failed 906
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 20 min One way or another 43,127
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 21 min Patrick 18,482
Sun could not have formed as thought 30 min U Have Failed 14
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Kenedy njoroge 151,460
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr It aint necessari... 204,729
Current Education And Its Huge Flaws Mon Bren 1
More from around the web