Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 | Posted by: Cash | Full story: www.scientificblogging.com

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."

Comments (Page 5,640)

Showing posts 112,781 - 112,800 of171,236
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115811
Feb 1, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's have long been labeled as junk DNA.

Um... better look that up again. ERVs can occur in either coding or non protein coding portions of DNA. The ERVs themselves can be functional or non-functional in terms of protein coding.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115812
Feb 1, 2013
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact: the first mechanism of evolution was discovered by a Christian.
Fact: the nested hierarchy of evolution was discovered by a Christian.
Fact: some of the greatest evolutionary biologists were/are Christians.
Fact: The secrets of the ultimate proof of evolution (DNA) was proposed and discovered by a Christian.
Therefore: atheism is irrelevant to evolution.
Atheism and evolution are unrelated concepts. That is true.
But Christianity and evolution are also unrelated concepts. That is also true.

So fecking what??

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115813
Feb 1, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I don't have a scientific survey. I know that the majority of physicians I know think goo-to-you evolution is absurd. Any survey that you can site will invariably fail to define "evolution".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...

And older poll
http://phys.org/news6847.html

Further explication
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/why-d...
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115814
Feb 1, 2013
 
The childish clique pretends to have many names, but in reality, they have one face and that is the face of deceit.

They hate hard, provable science, because that field must be proven. With evolution, they don't have to prove anything.

They care nothing for science and not one of them in all the years they have been here, have ever offered even one new thought to science.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115815
Feb 1, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why of course not. Ignoring of course the shedloads of inconvenient facts you've avoided for three years or something.
<quoted text>
Well I dunno. How about invisible magical Jewish wizards? That's scientific, right?
Dodge.

YOU said there was literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the subject of evolution. I asked for ONE that proves macroevolution true.

Right.

Let me make this so simple even an evotard can understand:

Cowboy's Rule of non-macroevolution:

"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation permanently locked within its own species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, collectively referred to as within "created kind"), and with no known significant exceptions."

Prove me wrong.

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115816
Feb 1, 2013
 
Furthermore,

Cowboy's Rule of Non-Macroevolution:

"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation, such that, the organism remains forever permanently locked within its own defined species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, regardless the number of generations or passage of time, and with no known historic or existing significant exceptions."

Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115817
Feb 1, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
The childish clique...With evolution, they don't have to prove anything.
And in their minds they get to continue behaving just like animals because after all, that's what they are...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115818
Feb 2, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm well aware of your stale recycled arguments. Abiogenesis reduces Darwinism to nothing. Junk DNA was the poster child for evolution for two decades. Now it's proponents are eating crow. You respond to the failed paradigm of genetic determinism as "meaningless rubbish"... then you accuse me of knowing nothing about science? You're obviously capable of copying and pasting atheist BS, but cannot logically think for yourself.
What utter bollocks.

Abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution's veracity. Even if God put the first bacteria in place, we know that since then, the evidence is for evolution all the way. Typical Creationist Fallacy: Trying to conflate what we do know and understand with what we don't know or understand (yet).

Junk DNA is not and never was a core or necessary prediction of evolution. Junk DNA was compatible with evolution but not with creationism. Even now, the actually usefully functional, selectable portion of the genome is estimated at 20%. A helluva lot of it is "functioning" merely to code useless fragments of RNA etc. Another Creationist Fallacy: create a strawman and knock it down.

Genetic determinism means what? Evolution was always strongly environmentally determined, not merely genetically. And epigenetics does not violate genetic determinism either. So what is your point?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115819
Feb 2, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Your philosophical opinion that atheism is irrelevant to evolution is likewise irrelevant.
Your philosophical opinion that atheism is relevant to evolution is, of course, equally irrelevant.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115820
Feb 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
I stopped responding to Dogen a long time ago. Him and a guy named Dutchy are the nuttiest of the bunch. Chimney is the only one with any brains but he is also one of the most radical.
Thanks, I think...but what is radical about my position? Its the same one held by 99.9% of biologists and over 90% of scientists in general!

The only truly full-on radical position being argued here is yours, i.e. your young earth creationism.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115821
Feb 2, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's represent a classic failed prediction of Darwinism.
By far the majority of ERVs are useless and parasitical. On the other hand its not surprising that their presence has, on occasion, become incorporated into functional processes. Such as interfering with the immune response in a way that enabled the development of the placenta.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115822
Feb 2, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>ERV's have long been labeled as junk DNA.
And most of them still are.

However, even the usual claims that ERVs are actually all usefull, it would not alter the parallel conclusions re the nested hierarchy based on pseudogenes and ubiquitous proteins. They all tell the same story, and its one that evolution can explain but creationism cannot.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115823
Feb 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
And in their minds they get to continue behaving just like animals because after all, that's what they are...
Absurd. Though it does remind me of the non-scientific objections that usually underlie the creationist position. What exactly do you mean when you say "act like animals"?

Humans act like humans. We have moral codes and conduct that does not depend one iota on what myths you choose to believe. God himself as represented in the Bible would fail miserably by modern ethical standards. Genocide of the Midianites, anyone? And careful not to beat your slaves to death. Or perhaps we should fast forward to "when your enemy smites you, turn the other cheek". How's that one worked out for Christians? How many can follow it, and where would Christianity be if they had?

Morality can be developed on a rational basis. Human life is not a myth, its a reality, and morality should be tailored to bettering it. Now, let me modify that slightly...I do not favour any radical re-valuation of morals by the lunatic left. We saw the results of that. We should respect traditions simply because the traditions that have survived - by trial and error - are clearly successful. They got us this far. That does not mean freezing them in stone, but it does mean that a conservative approach to change is probably wise. We can never see the full results of our decisions, but we can see what has worked in the past...so when we change things, we do it with caution.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115824
Feb 2, 2013
 
In case you missed it...that was a Darwinian style argument by the way!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115825
Feb 2, 2013
 
One way or another wrote:
The childish clique pretends to have many names, but in reality, they have one face and that is the face of deceit.
They hate hard, provable science, because that field must be proven. With evolution, they don't have to prove anything.
They care nothing for science and not one of them in all the years they have been here, have ever offered even one new thought to science.

Science does not prove theories. Science supports theories.

Theories never become "proven".

Evolution is the most materially supported theory in the history of science.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115826
Feb 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodge.
YOU said there was literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the subject of evolution. I asked for ONE that proves macroevolution true.
Right.
Let me make this so simple even an evotard can understand:
Cowboy's Rule of non-macroevolution:
"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation permanently locked within its own species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, collectively referred to as within "created kind"), and with no known significant exceptions."
Prove me wrong.

You actually just proved evolution true well beyond the macro level. Proof: "Cowboy's Rule of non-macroevolution:
"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation permanently locked within its own species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family"

What stops macroevolution from going even further? We have proven mechanism that all for it to do so?

But thanks for admitting macroevolution. That is a start.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115827
Feb 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
Furthermore,
Cowboy's Rule of Non-Macroevolution:
"All biological living organisms have (for all practical purposes) unlimited genetic variation, such that, the organism remains forever permanently locked within its own defined species (and only rarely as much as within genus or even family - but no further, regardless the number of generations or passage of time, and with no known historic or existing significant exceptions."

Australopithecine is far closer to Homo habilis (same genesis as modern humans) than they are to modern humans. So it would appear that your rule has been falsified.

NEXT!
Urban Cowboy

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115828
Feb 2, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Absurd. Though it does remind me of the non-scientific objections that usually underlie the creationist position. What exactly do you mean when you say "act like animals"?
Humans act like humans. We have moral codes and conduct that does not depend one iota on what myths you choose to believe. God himself as represented in the Bible would fail miserably by modern ethical standards. Genocide of the Midianites, anyone? And careful not to beat your slaves to death. Or perhaps we should fast forward to "when your enemy smites you, turn the other cheek". How's that one worked out for Christians? How many can follow it, and where would Christianity be if they had?
Morality can be developed on a rational basis. Human life is not a myth, its a reality, and morality should be tailored to bettering it. Now, let me modify that slightly...I do not favour any radical re-valuation of morals by the lunatic left. We saw the results of that. We should respect traditions simply because the traditions that have survived - by trial and error - are clearly successful. They got us this far. That does not mean freezing them in stone, but it does mean that a conservative approach to change is probably wise. We can never see the full results of our decisions, but we can see what has worked in the past...so when we change things, we do it with caution.
Not absurd. It explains the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers. Believers place high value/importance on morality while non-believers generally do not. Ask an atheist and a Christian the same question about sex, honesty, family, marriage, etc., and you usually get very different answers. The typical non-believing young couple shacks up while the Christian couple waits until marriage for sex. Views on abortion, charity, etc. THere is a big difference. Believers have even been found to have less stress than non-believers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/...
Urban Cowboy

Miami, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115829
Feb 2, 2013
 
Cowboys Rule of Non-Macroevolution:

"All biological organisms have potentially unlimited genetic variation, restricted to within their own defined species (and only extremely rarely genus), regardless of generation or time, and with no known present or historic significant exception."

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115830
Feb 2, 2013
 
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Not absurd. It explains the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers. Believers place high value/importance on morality while non-believers generally do not. Ask an atheist and a Christian the same question about sex, honesty, family, marriage, etc., and you usually get very different answers. The typical non-believing young couple shacks up while the Christian couple waits until marriage for sex. Views on abortion, charity, etc. THere is a big difference. Believers have even been found to have less stress than non-believers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/...
Ask two believers about those same topics and you always get two totally different answers. Your point is null, you have none.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 112,781 - 112,800 of171,236
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••