Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178661 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.

One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114174 Jan 11, 2013
Your science is coming along pretty good for y'all.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#114175 Jan 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Your science is coming along pretty good for y'all.
The same cannot be said for you tho.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#114176 Jan 11, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
Just like the paid government clique that refuses to punish the Jews for rearranging the alphabet in phone books so gentile carpetlayers would go out of business?
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The funny part is there is likely some here that think you kidding about this. Yet it was one of Ryan's goofy claims. True story.
Those Jewish b*st*rds at Aardvark Anonymous International Holdings, one day they will PAY!!!

>:-(
Elohim

Branford, CT

#114177 Jan 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Those Jewish b*st*rds at Aardvark Anonymous International Holdings, one day they will PAY!!!
>:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#114178 Jan 11, 2013
DonKingPromoter wrote:
Evolution shouldnt be taught at all because it has nothing to do with science. it is a myth or fairy tale. everything with it can not be proven and has completely no evidence. the evidences of evolution have been found to be forgeries and false
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/south-africa...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#114179 Jan 11, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously ?
(evil grin)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#114180 Jan 11, 2013
DonKingPromoter wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution shouldnt be taught at all because it has nothing to do with science. it is a myth or fairy tale. everything with it can not be proven and has completely no evidence. the evidences of evolution have been found to be forgeries and false
The Dude wrote:
BWAHAHAHAHAA! Priceless!

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#114181 Jan 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is not a good one because;
A. it is too easy.
B. it ignores the fact that all 5 could be involved.
C. it ignores my question.
D. does not prove to anyone that you understand what you are talking about.
E. all of the above.
Answer for question 1) is b. For question 2 it is E.
WRONG ANSWER!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#114182 Jan 11, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in natural selection.
It certainly works for business. Economic natural selection, clients choosing which companies to give their business to based on quality/pricing/timing/etc., allows the good ones to survive or change with the changing economy. The bad ones go belly up ... just like your carpet laying business did. You were incompetent ... and economic natural selection forced your company to go extinct.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#114183 Jan 11, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
It certainly works for business. Economic natural selection, clients choosing which companies to give their business to based on quality/pricing/timing/etc., allows the good ones to survive or change with the changing economy. The bad ones go belly up ... just like your carpet laying business did. You were incompetent ... and economic natural selection forced your company to go extinct.
Unless they are "too big to fail".
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114184 Jan 11, 2013
There is no such thing as natural selection.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114185 Jan 11, 2013
Tell us what you do, that you consider natural selection.
Mugwump

London, UK

#114186 Jan 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless they are "too big to fail".
Decent point actually - who says its a free market

- out of interest is a good book (To Big To Fail) can't recall the author but a good read if you interested in the lead up to the crunch
Elohim

Branford, CT

#114187 Jan 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless they are "too big to fail".
Yup. Socialize the losses, privatize the profits.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#114188 Jan 11, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Think the point is that you are mentally ill.
"Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about." - Chip Todd
Intense and prolonged anger has a way of interferring with higher cognitive functions. He's not mentally ill, he's just very, very pissed, and he knows that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

You've probably had some education dealing with conflict management, so you would be aware that there are basic goals most people strive to achieve in conflict situations.

In these forums, the most common goals are either Win-Win or Win-Lose, and sometimes Compromise. Ryan knows that he's overmatched in any conceptual engagement, so Win-Win is not an option, and Win-Lose is just too distasteful because he would always end up losing. And Compromise is too complicated, so that's out also. So it ends up that Lose-Lose is his best bet. He doesn't mind losing--as long as you also lose. To him, that is a way to finally see himself as being on equal ground.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#114189 Jan 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That bacterial resistance to antiobiotics is an example of evolution is a common misconception and a evolutionists false claim. The only thing this demonstrates is selection of preexisting alleles as there is no mutation involved.
Natural selection occurs when the surviving species is the one that is most adapted to the environment. Clearly, only the surviving competitors reproduce. Therefore, traits that provide the competitive edge will be represented most often succeeding generations.
Mutations do not contribute to the survival of resistant bacteria; the genetic material has not changed.
In a way you are correct. DNA is DNA is DNA. It does not mutate to something other than DNA. Over billions of years of micro evolution, from bacteria to mammals, it is still DNA.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#114190 Jan 11, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, but you are willing to accept that everything in the universe came out of nowhere and life just started out of non-living materials and that frogs evolved into princes, right? Walking on water would seem inconsequential compared to all that!
How is that any more stupid than saying "some magical being did it with magical incantations?" At least the natural version gives us some useful information.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114191 Jan 11, 2013
Gotta love games.

Moons reflectors bogus

So, the moons reflectors are 239,000 miles from earth, approximately and since the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, y'all must think that laser beam will get back to earth pretty fast. Actually, the light should return to earth from the moons reflectors in 1.3 seconds, with the reflectors designed to reflect the light back to the point it came from.

However, in the 1.3 seconds the light takes to return to its origin, the earth has moved approx 4,000 miles from the point source of light, according to sciences claim that our galaxy is traveling that fast in 1 second, making it impossible for science to capture any photons, at least according to science.

Science sure is messed up, thinking it can collect photons that are 4,000 miles behind the collector.

At least they depend on all of us being stupid enough to believe them. Well, at least y'all.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114192 Jan 11, 2013
Your choice

Funny, I prove NASA and Goddard must be stupid, according to their own web site.

You children are the failures.

Stupidity of NASA +Goddard

On the website,----http://eclipse.gsf c.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser . html
It claims,--------- scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters.
I say, WOW, what a marvel.
On to the next part.
Science claims,---"Lunar ranging involves sending a laser beam through an optical telescope," Dickey said. "The beam enters the telescope where the eye piece would be, and the transmitted beam is expanded to become the diameter of the main mirror, then bounced off the surface toward the reflector on the Moon."
The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retroreflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the beam is roughly four miles wide. Scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime two miles away.
I say,--------so now, with a laser light 4 miles wide and an exact location, probably sending out a beacon or should be, they complain like hell. So much for close, perhaps 500 pound bomb close.
Now here is a crucial piece to my complaint.--------
Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing conditions, only one photon is received every few seconds.
I say,------read that last sentence very carefully. One photon every few seconds.
Science doesn't say one or two seconds or a couple of seconds. Instead, science claims a FEW seconds, meaning, it took 3 or more seconds for the photon to go from the moon to the earth. That means, that the beam should have taken, 1.3 seconds and not a full 3 seconds or more as NASA and the Goddard space center claim.
Suck on that Evo morons.
One way or another

Hollywood, FL

#114193 Jan 11, 2013
Just the way it will be.

The Evo morons never have a thought all their own.

Light does not travel here from distant galaxies. It is simply that we can see that light through our telescopes.

The moons retroflectors prove how quickly light disperses in just 239,000 miles and back. There are so many billions of planets, so much space dust, so much mass ejections of plasma from suns, so much in cosmic rays, gas clouds and the interference is just endless.

Science has a way to test light theory, but obviously, it doesn't, for a reason.

There is a defining factor in proving light from distant universes does not reach here. Can any of you figure out what it is?

If light cannot escape a black hole, what force stops the light?

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) 28 min Blitzking 168,878
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 46 min ChromiuMan 141,824
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Paul Porter1 19,787
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 5 hr dirtclod 6,215
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 17 hr Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Thu Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web