Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179702 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

United States

#115377 Jan 28, 2013
Gravity

Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

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 and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger 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 smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

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 is questionable

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.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its orbit, so testing would not be so easy.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan

Ok
One way or another

United States

#115378 Jan 28, 2013
Poor children, never had even one new thought in all the years they've been here. It easy to understand their jealousy.
One way or another

United States

#115379 Jan 28, 2013
Test/ speed of light theory

More new science by Jim Ryan

If science really wanted to test speed of light theory, science could add a simple laser light to any of its probes and when the probe got say a million miles away from earth, it could send its laser light back to earth, one aimed at American collectors one at Russian collectors and one at another countries collectors, unless science is afraid to know the truth.
How is it that not one scientist in the whole world thought of such already? Are they all morons or does science just not want to know?


Left

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115380 Jan 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so hung up on the obsession with appearing original that I can assume this was the only way you got attention from your mother.
It would seem that his mother eventually gave up all hope of teaching him any practical skills and settled for appeasement.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#115382 Jan 28, 2013
Elohim wrote:
<quoted text>It has been presented. You ignore it. We laugh at you. Go sniff some more cat piss and carpet dander.
Even more laughable is Jimbozo thinking *anyone* would be jealous of him.
One way or another

United States

#115383 Jan 28, 2013
Space is not a vacuum.

Science claims space is a vacuum

New science by Jim Ryan

The speed of light test done in a vacuum over 20 miles is total BS, because man can achieve a totally closed and complete vacuum, while space cannot. It has trillions of tons of dust, if you believe in star nurseries, as science claims, coupled with 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, ENTIRELY DEVOID of matter, because that is the only way that test could show light traveling at 186,00 miles per Test/ speed of light theory

More new science by Jim Ryan

If science really wanted to test speed of light theory, science could add a simple laser light to any of its probes and when the probe got say a million miles away from earth, it could send its laser light back to earth, one aimed at American collectors one at Russian collectors and one at another countries collectors, unless science is afraid to know the truth.
How is it that not one scientist in the whole world thought of such already? Are they all morons or does science just not want to know?

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.

To have star nurseries,--plural, as science claims and it takes dust beyond measure almost, to create a star, never mind many stars in many nurseries, as science claims, science contradicts itself terribly, while all scientist must be stupid or stoned, not to point it out to science as a whole.

The following is for all you idiot scientists and the morons that believe you. Read the last line carefully.

MISSING DARK MATTER LOCATED - INTER-GALACTIC SPACE IS FILLED WITH DARK MATTER

On many science web sites, science claims there is almost no matter in space. Science lies constantly

Researchers at IPMU and Nagoya University used large-scale computer simulations and recent observational data of gravitational lensing to reveal how dark matter is distributed around galaxies.

Galaxies have no definite "edges", the new research concludes. Instead galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to their nearby galaxies; the inter-galactic space is not empty but filled with dark matter.

http://www.ipmu.jp/node/1222

1 2 3
One way or another

United States

#115384 Jan 28, 2013
Science deceitful in its definitions.

Main Entry: varve
Pronunciation:\&#712;värv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Swedish varv turn, layer; akin to Old Norse hvarf ring, Old English hweorfan to turn — more at wharf
Date: 1912
: a pair of layers of alternately finer and coarser silt or clay believed to comprise an annual cycle of deposition in a body of still water

Science is becoming very shabby. Above is the original definition. Now science is changing the definition below, as evolution distorts most everything.

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/var...

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#115386 Jan 28, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a "psychosis" in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue. People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against, or loved from a distance. These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.
People with delusional disorder often can continue to socialize and function normally, apart from the subject of their delusion, and generally do not behave in an obviously odd or bizarre manner. This is unlike people with other psychotic disorders, who also might have delusions as a symptom of their disorder. In some cases, however, people with delusional disorder might become so preoccupied with their delusions that their lives are disrupted.
*
Grandiose: A person with this type of delusional disorder has an over-inflated sense of worth, power, knowledge, or identity. The person might believe he or she has a great talent or has made an important discovery.
( http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delu... )
Sorry, I'm not seeing how Jimbo here fits the description. Can you be more specific? ;)
I think Dogen has a valid point. On some deep level he is driven by grandiose delusions.

However, on the surface he is acting out what, for him, is a very rational plan. Individual facts, right or wrong, are of little consequence. But at some time in the past he was not recognized as a competent adult, and he is burning to establish that he, above all, is an adult and all the authortarian world around him is made up of children.
One way or another

United States

#115388 Jan 28, 2013
When you act like a childish clique, you will be treated in that manner, but one can't expect children to understand such.
Mugwump

Glasgow, UK

#115390 Jan 28, 2013
One way or another wrote:
It's too bad that not one of you can give reasoned thought to why my claims are wrong.
Jim - a challenge

You insist that no-one has given reasoned thought to your claims - I would suggest that people do - you just ignore it.

So lets put it to the test - post what you think is your best 'new science'- then it can be discussed rationally.

Seem fair?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115391 Jan 28, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If what you idiots say about me is true, you are just as sick for constantly responding to me. Lol
You morons
Jim, I know I've asked you this before, and you've never answered, but I figure I'll give it another shot.

Have you ever been hospitalized against your will?

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#115392 Jan 28, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously?
I thought the ;) would give it away. Too subtle?
One way or another

United States

#115393 Jan 28, 2013
You children should get another hobby, as not one of you in all the years you've been here, has brought even one new thought to this board.

Get a clue
One way or another

United States

#115394 Jan 28, 2013
You children prove you hate science as much as you do challenging authority, because of your fear.

Go do something else, you don't stand a chance here. You cannot think for yourselves. You prove it here, year after year.
One way or another

United States

#115395 Jan 28, 2013
It really seems as if you enjoy making yourselves look like the childish, deceitful idiots, you act like.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115396 Jan 28, 2013
One way or another wrote:
If what you idiots say about me is true, you are just as sick for constantly responding to me. Lol
You morons

At last you have a valid point.

Touchè!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115397 Jan 28, 2013
One way or another wrote:
I post my original work ..... and partly to find someone with a brain, that can actually argue the subjects.
You will never find a "brain" with those qualifications, here.

Perhaps you should try the Warren State Hospital Regional Forensic Psychiatric Center.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115398 Jan 28, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Jim, I know I've asked you this before, and you've never answered, but I figure I'll give it another shot.
Have you ever been hospitalized against your will?
Retroactively speaking, no.
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#115399 Jan 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No problem. We have a number of them in orthologous positions in all the great apes - humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans. Each sharing slightly less as we go along, so we share the most with chimps, slightly less with gorillas, and again slightly less with orangs. Meaning the pattern of shared ERV's match nested hierarchies. Since ERV's are originally the result of retro-viruses there is no reason they should fall into nested hierarchies. In fact it would be EXCEEDINGLY unlikely, since retroviruses insert themselves at random positions in the genome. If they attack anywhere in the host OTHER than along the germ line (sperm or egg) the mutation caused by ERV's will NOT be passed on to any offspring.
There, that was easy wasn't it?
Great story telling Dude. A bit presumptuous though. Too bad you got no proof of any of this. Do you have anything further back, like fish? No. Have ERV's turned out to be functioning genes and not ERVs? Yes Is the very word, "orthologous" speculative? Yes. Could it be that certain viruses naturally attach to very specific loci and that is why you find them in similar places? We don't know. Doesn't this presumption of ERVs matching nested hierarchy assume that evolution is true? Yes. Is any of this based on direct observation? No. You got nothing. ERVs as evidence of evolution is very far-fetched. How about some actual directly observed macroevolution? Right, because that's impossible.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#115400 Jan 28, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Great story telling Dude. A bit presumptuous though. Too bad you got no proof of any of this. Do you have anything further back, like fish? No. Have ERV's turned out to be functioning genes and not ERVs? Yes Is the very word, "orthologous" speculative? Yes. Could it be that certain viruses naturally attach to very specific loci and that is why you find them in similar places? We don't know. Doesn't this presumption of ERVs matching nested hierarchy assume that evolution is true? Yes. Is any of this based on direct observation? No. You got nothing. ERVs as evidence of evolution is very far-fetched. How about some actual directly observed macroevolution? Right, because that's impossible.
Hi UC - how you doing - believe it or not it a welcome relief from Jimbos rantings to see you (you probably right - he is a windup - and a loon)

However your post just raises the same old double-standards - you again insist evolution isn't science/true because it can't be directly observed - but then gloss over that the creation story, including Genesis, the flood , Babel etc have in the same way never been directly observed, and furthermore don't seem possible unless you work from the pre-supposition that 'The Bible must be true (*)'rather than 'IS the bible true'

(*) again am at pains to point out when I see true I am not belittling your faith (I may as well try to get Jimbo to engage in a rational conversation) but just pointing out the lack of coherency in your position.

Anyway - work beckons - toodle-pip (or 'See ya all' as you burger munchers say)

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 min IB DaMann 18,690
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 40 min thetruth 43,377
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr ChromiuMan 205,422
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr U think Im wrong 928
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) 5 hr Chazofsaints 37
Questions about first life Sun Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Sun Dogen 151,492
More from around the web