Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180300 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

#111569 Dec 9, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Then by all means idiot, tell us how spin explains gravity. LMAO yea, we'll wait. Moron


Oh, so you didn't hear? I only used spin as a springboard for other thoughts. I'v solved gravity, here it is, although I know it will be waaay over your head poopsie, here it is.

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is  keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth. 

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass  as the rocky worlds  settled into their orbits, while the much lighter planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the planets with more mass get closer to the sun.

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that fits. 

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass. 

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon) 
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan 
defender

Tucker, GA

#111570 Dec 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>Kiss em just once more, the brown looks so good on you.
Dude I've been reading your debate and these guys have ripped your theory to shreds... Now I don't agree with most on this forum but that doesn't mean they are stupid... Crazy maybe... But not stupid... Nothing wrong with showing respect even if you don't agree..
defender

Tucker, GA

#111571 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Of course there should be not "religion of Evolution". But then I have never heard of such a religion. All of the evolutionary studies that I know of are based upon science. Do you know of any other beliefs?
It's called Darwinism!! It has this magical god named Natural Selection that has all the answers... Of course the origin for this god is unknown as well as where it gets information to mutate for the benefit of a spices... Sound like any other regilions to you?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#111572 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called Darwinism!! It has this magical god named Natural Selection that has all the answers... Of course the origin for this god is unknown as well as where it gets information to mutate for the benefit of a spices... Sound like any other regilions to you?
Natural selection is just life. What survives breeds, what doesn't doesn't.

Our genes are mixed by sex and some mutations making all young different from their parents and each other. The hazards of life then sort out the best able to succeed from the least able.
No information required.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111573 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
It's called Darwinism!! It has this magical god named Natural Selection that has all the answers... Of course the origin for this god is unknown as well as where it gets information to mutate for the benefit of a spices... Sound like any other regilions to you?
No, it seems that you simply do not understand evolution. Natural Selection is only half of the answer. Creatards continually only bring up half of the motive force of evolution in failed attempt to debunk it. You cannot forget Random Variation. Together and only together do they drive evolution, one by itself is not enough.

No magic is needed. People can easily make computer programs that will mirror real life evolutionary processes.
defender

Tucker, GA

#111574 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, it seems that you simply do not understand evolution. Natural Selection is only half of the answer. Creatards continually only bring up half of the motive force of evolution in failed attempt to debunk it. You cannot forget Random Variation. Together and only together do they drive evolution, one by itself is not enough.

No magic is needed. People can easily make computer programs that will mirror real life evolutionary processes.
Yet most species benefit more from the loss of information... Quite gripping don't you think?... And yes information is required for systems to work, reproduce and mutate... Yes people can make a computer but the computer cannot create programs on it's own or adapt to viruses previously unknown to it's programing its only defense is to shut itself down... Not so in the biochemical world, DNA can identify, copy and produce defenses... From natural selection and random variation?... Don't think so...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#111575 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
DNA can identify, copy and produce defenses... From natural selection and random variation?... Don't think so
Why not?
defender

Tucker, GA

#111576 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>Why not?
Why not God? Or alien technology?...

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111577 Dec 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
I have to not only wonder at the planets orbits and by size and mass to differing degrees, but let's say a huge asteroid hit Pluto, could it get knocked out of its orbit or would the impact have to be so big that it blasted into pieces and would those pieces fly out of their orbit or would they remain in their orbit.

The majority of it would remain in the same or similar orbit. Unless the mass was near the size of pluto in which case the majority of the mass would continue in the orbit of the object which it it. If it, the planet or pieces got knocked out of its their orbit, would it, they, float away or would they it, settle back into its same orbit.

[QUOTE who="Psychology"] That brings another question to mind. Can an asteroid comes to rest in an orbit around any planet and if yes, is it then called a moon?

Yes. Likely a number of the smaller moons of Jupiter and Saturn are captured debris.

[QUOTE who="Psychology"] How many asteroids can be counted , that have come to rest in an orbit, around any planet?

Uncertain.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111578 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks I was getting bored... I really do enjoy debating with you guys and have a deep respect for your intellect... Now back to the fight!!!.... I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution being taught its the religion of Evolution meant to destroy faith and belittle people that I feel should be done away with... As Sgt. Friday would say "Just the facts Ma'am"

I am shocked to say this, but I think I agree. Evolution is a scientific theory and should never be taught as opposed to faith. But I don't think that happens much. Can't say never, however.

You would think the endorsement of high profile ministers would have ended the fight over the fact of evolution. Nothing in science refutes god.
Psychology

United States

#111579 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude I've been reading your debate and these guys have ripped your theory to shreds... Now I don't agree with most on this forum but that doesn't mean they are stupid... Crazy maybe... But not stupid... Nothing wrong with showing respect even if you don't agree..
Then show me, because I don't see it. You do it, with your words.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111580 Dec 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
So tell us how newton would explain the theory of gravity. I'm hoping he wasn't that stupid.

Newton identified the mechanism(s) of gravity. His was the one of the most elegant formulas in all of the history of science. But he did not expound a theory of gravity in the same way that it was addressed by Einstein and others. Hence Newton's 'Law of Gravity', not "theory of gravity".

F = G((m1*m2)/r^2)

F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_o...

that is exactly how he DID explain it.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111581 Dec 9, 2012
Psychology wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so you didn't hear? I only used spin as a springboard for other thoughts. I'v solved gravity, here it is, although I know it will be waaay over your head poopsie, here it is.
Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is  keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth. 
The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass  as the rocky worlds  settled into their orbits, while the much lighter planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the planets with more mass get closer to the sun.
Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.
Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.
Earth fits correctly.
Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that fits. 
Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass. 
The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.
Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.
Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory
Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.
Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why
Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon) 
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.
Hypothesis by ,--
Jim Ryan 

Repeating the same nonsense over and over does not make it true.

Proof: Have you ever been right about anything?
Psychology

United States

#111582 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude I've been reading your debate and these guys have ripped your theory to shreds... Now I don't agree with most on this forum but that doesn't mean they are stupid... Crazy maybe... But not stupid... Nothing wrong with showing respect even if you don't agree..
If you don't need them to do your thinking for you, then it should be easy for you to counter my new gravity theory, right?
defender

Tucker, GA

#111583 Dec 9, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>I am shocked to say this, but I think I agree. Evolution is a scientific theory and should never be taught as opposed to faith. But I don't think that happens much. Can't say never, however.

You would think the endorsement of high profile ministers would have ended the fight over the fact of evolution. Nothing in science refutes god.
Lol.. Who listens to high profile ministers without clutching their wallets these days? Christianity is a broken money racket far removed from the teachings of Christ... And would be the first ready to crucify him again upon his return...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#111584 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet most species benefit more from the loss of information... Quite gripping don't you think?... And yes information is required for systems to work, reproduce and mutate... Yes people can make a computer but the computer cannot create programs on it's own or adapt to viruses previously unknown to it's programing its only defense is to shut itself down... Not so in the biochemical world, DNA can identify, copy and produce defenses... From natural selection and random variation?... Don't think so...
What do you mean "the loss of information"? It has been shown how the various ways that mutation occur that there is either an adding or changing of the genome. And calling the genome "information" is not totally correct. It is more of a recipe of how to put proteins together. Mutations are merely changes in the recipe. Of course that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but still more correct than to call it "information".

I think you misunderstood my computer reference. Computer programs can mimic populations under going evolution using Natural Selection and Random Mutation. It had nothing to do with computer viruses.

Are you still denying the fact that there are literally tons of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution and none that support creationism? Or do we have to go through what scientific evidence is again?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111588 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.. Who listens to high profile ministers without clutching their wallets these days? Christianity is a broken money racket far removed from the teachings of Christ... And would be the first ready to crucify him again upon his return...

Amen!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#111591 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
Why not God? Or alien technology?
Evidence for the existence of a "god" or of aliens?(And if aliens, who made the aliens?)
defender

Tucker, GA

#111592 Dec 9, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>What do you mean "the loss of information"? It has been shown how the various ways that mutation occur that there is either an adding or changing of the genome. And calling the genome "information" is not totally correct. It is more of a recipe of how to put proteins together. Mutations are merely changes in the recipe. Of course that is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but still more correct than to call it "information".

I think you misunderstood my computer reference. Computer programs can mimic populations under going evolution using Natural Selection and Random Mutation. It had nothing to do with computer viruses.

Are you still denying the fact that there are literally tons of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution and none that support creationism? Or do we have to go through what scientific evidence is again?
The loss of information or deleted information has shown to be beneficial to spices in many cases... How do you not know that?... And you cannot have a recipe without information (common since)... Tons of evidence? You never gave me one shred... And finally I'm stating the if natural selection occurs for the benefit of spices it must have been designed... Working systems do not work without intelligent design... And thats not even getting into dependency of other life to survive... And yes I understand you computer reference... What about thousands of generations of e coli and bacteria grown in labs never showing any observable evolution... Despite all the mutation it all dies the same spices it was...
One way or another

United States

#111593 Dec 9, 2012
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.. Who listens to high profile ministers without clutching their wallets these days? Christianity is a broken money racket far removed from the teachings of Christ... And would be the first ready to crucify him again upon his return...
Heu boy, even the morons on this site were right about you. You run your mouth and then run away.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 14 min marksman11 167,896
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Regolith Based Li... 93,375
The Design of Time is Prophecy and is absolute ... 12 hr Rose_NoHo 22
Womans Birth Cycle absolutely Proves Design and... 14 hr Rose_NoHo 72
What's your religion? (Sep '17) 16 hr Critical Eye 1,150
News Intelligent Design's One Valid Scientific Point Fri Aunty Christ 97
Did we evolved from Canadians? Fri Simon 2