Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story
One way or another

United States

#114285 Jan 13, 2013

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#114286 Jan 13, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a chicken v egg issue. The anger and the paranoid delusional ideation feed each other. It is estimated and widely accepted that about 40% of the population suffers from a diagnosable mental illness at some point in their life. Anxiety disorders head these up, followed by depression.
That seems to make good sense. Once all the ingredients are in the soup, they interact not as individual ingredients, but as soup.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#114287 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Immunology
More original science by Jim Ryan
In the following I would suggest that science study children that rarely wear shoes or don't wear shoes at all. I would divide the study into different nations or groups of nations with basically, the same diseases.
I would divide the shoeless-- because of intense poverty, from the people and children that choose to go shoeless and those that rarely or almost never go without shoes.
I might look at the data as the mostly shoeless by desire as mentally and possibly physically, stronger and therefore, more resistant to disease, unless science finds differently.
Logic
Many immunology have already been done that conclude over-protecting children from desease results in children with insufficient immunity to common bacteria.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#114288 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
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.
Using that argument, the light from the Sun, which has to travel for 8 minutes to reach Earth, would never get to us because the Earth would have moved away from it.
One way or another

United States

#114289 Jan 13, 2013
Ignorant and childish nonsense will be ignored. If an intelligent question or arguments comes along, I'll answer.
One way or another

United States

#114290 Jan 13, 2013
Since we see out to the light, speed of light becomes subjective, both day and night, just as we see out to the light of galaxies billions of miles away.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#114291 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Ignorant and childish nonsense will be ignored. If an intelligent question or arguments comes along, I'll answer.
In other words, you don't have an answer for this: "Using that argument, the light from the Sun, which has to travel for 8 minutes to reach Earth, would never get to us because the Earth would have moved away from it. "

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#114292 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Since we see out to the light, speed of light becomes subjective, both day and night, just as we see out to the light of galaxies billions of miles away.
You don't "see out to the light".

The light leaves the light source and enters your retina. It comes to *you*.

How does it reach you if the Earth is moving, the Solar System is moving, and the Galaxy is moving?

How does the light from your laser pointer reach its target if the second it leaves your laser pointer, your target has already moved?

How do radio and TV communications manage to work between Earth and satellites if the Earth has already moved away from where the satellite is sending its signal?
One way or another

United States

#114293 Jan 13, 2013
There is no way to prove that the suns light takes 8 minutes to get to earth, because as the sun is always shining and light bends, light reaches us before the sun rises above the horizon.

Any collector will have multiple light sources. Without colored laser light, science cannot distinguish the multiple light emissions in their collectors, that's why science uses colored laser light in its failed moon tests.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#114294 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
There is no way to prove that the suns light takes 8 minutes to get to earth
On the contrary, we know what the speed of light is, and we know how far the Earth is from the Sun.

Therefore, we know how long it takes for light to get from the Sun to the Earth.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#114295 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
because as the sun is always shining and light bends, light reaches us before the sun rises above the horizon.
Light reaches us *on the ground* before the Sun rises above the horizon because the light is diffused by the atmosphere.
One way or another wrote:
Without colored laser light, science cannot distinguish the multiple light emissions in their collectors, that's why science uses colored laser light in its failed moon tests.
The Moon tests didn't fail. I guess you missed that fact.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114296 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Ignorant and childish nonsense will be ignored. If an intelligent question or arguments comes along, I'll answer.
Ok, let's see if you are true to your word.

Question : why bother with strapping lasers (lazers?) to probes and sending them into space as you suggest when the same process can be carried on earth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau –Foucault_apparatus

Specifically - what makes your method better than the above.

Or any of these methods?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#M...

Now if you feel this is NOT an intelligent question - please outline why.

I await your answer with a sense of hope.

Regards

Mugwump
One way or another

United States

#114297 Jan 13, 2013
Science offers hearsay on its light tests. It has not offered a peer review on its moon test, besides morons that also show no proof.

If science bothered with a simple test from one of its probes, with several different countries involved and science offering the general public, first hand knowledge of how the collectors work, how they distinguish color and show the proof in present time, then could we say that we know, instead of science is full of shit.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114298 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Science offers hearsay on its light tests. It has not offered a peer review on its moon test, besides morons that also show no proof.
If science bothered with a simple test from one of its probes, with several different countries involved and science offering the general public, first hand knowledge of how the collectors work, how they distinguish color and show the proof in present time, then could we say that we know, instead of science is full of shit.
And I will ask again, why go to the extreme lengths you propose when simpler tests can be carried out on earth (and have been)

You did say you would answer any intelligent questions, and if you are correct in what you say, and the rest of the scientific community is wrong, you should be able to demonstrate why.

Shouldn't you?

2nd attempt
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#114299 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Ignorant and childish nonsense will be ignored. If an intelligent question or arguments comes along, I'll answer.
After all of the insanely idiotic "original work" that you've been posting here, it should be eminently clear to everyone reading these threads that you wouldn't know an intelligent question or argument if it reached out of your monitor and slapped you upside the head.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#114300 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Since we see out to the light, speed of light becomes subjective, both day and night, just as we see out to the light of galaxies billions of miles away.
Riiiight. And that computer monitor in front of your face is there ONLY because your eyes beam the image of it out for you to be able to see it.

You "know" about computer monitors, therefore your brain tells your eyes which model to recreate in front of your face. Is that the way it works?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#114301 Jan 13, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Science offers hearsay on its light tests. It has not offered a peer review on its moon test
On the contrary, over 250 articles have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific research journals on the subject of lunar laser ranging.
Mugwump

Bradford, UK

#114302 Jan 13, 2013
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
After all of the insanely idiotic "original work" that you've been posting here, it should be eminently clear to everyone reading these threads that you wouldn't know an intelligent question or argument if it reached out of your monitor and slapped you upside the head.
No, no, no give him some credit - he says he will answer intelligent questions about his research and I believe (unless you or he can show otherwise) I have asked just such a question.

Maybe he has missed it, or is just formulating an rational response as we speak.
One way or another

United States

#114303 Jan 13, 2013
Strap? Lol

Space is not a vacuum.

The speed of light test done in a vacuum over 20 miles is total BS, as space is not a vacuum. It has trillions of tons of dust, if you believe in star nurseries, billions of miles of gas clouds, trillions of tons of plasma from the billions of suns and their ejections, trillions of tons of cosmic rays that all tend to divert and break up light, from as close as the moon, as science proves.

There is no vacuum in space, the kind that man can bring about on earth, in space, ENTIRELY DEVOID of matter.

Trillions of tons of matter is all through out space, according to science.

How is it scientists are too stupid to understand that there is no vacuum in space?

vacuum[ vak-yoom,-yoo-uh&#8201;m,- yuh&#8201;m ]
noun
1. a space entirely devoid of matter.
2. an enclosed space from which matter, especially air, has been partially removed so that the matter or gas remaining in the space exerts less pressure than the atmosphere (plenum).
3. the state or degree of exhaustion in such an enclosed space.
One way or another

United States

#114304 Jan 13, 2013
Any peer review of stupidity is just stupidity.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min TurkanaBoy 132,424
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 499
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Brian_G 13,616
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 5 hr Zach 4
How would creationists explain... 6 hr TurkanaBoy 314
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr positronium 2,943
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web