Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180392 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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115922 Feb 3, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right... In last months issue alone they jump from one expert saying evolution couldn't have happened as fast as we think to another article right after that one with another so called scientist saying evolution in humans is occurring at an alarming rate!! Lol...
There are no "experts" that claim evolution could not happen. Only deluded idiots.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115923 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubbish.
Evolution works on the principle of random variation and natural selection.
You don't understand the difference between science and bedtime stories.
HTS

South Lake Tahoe, CA

#115924 Feb 3, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Get real. Very few ERVs are functional.
But Subduction is right. If something gets wound up in the genetic code there is always a chance it will have some effect, and even a chance that the effect will become part of a beneficial change in the organism.
While recent estimates are that 80% of the genome does "something", the same sources are still telling us that the vast majority of that "function" is useless, such as merely churning out useless RNA fragments that are then broken down with no further ado. Useful function had been determined for only 8-9% of the DNA and the researchers estimate that figure could be up to 20% once they have nailed it all down.
So while junk DNA is not and never was a core prediction of evolution, the presence of so much useless material still remains a conundrum for Creationists.
All of your evo-babbling is transparent. You cannot defend any tenet of evolution without reference to religion. The percentage of ERV functionality centers entirely around the religion of atheism. Think about it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#115925 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You don't understand the difference between science and bedtime stories.
Funniest post today!

Sorry, HTS, evolution was discovered using the scientific method, it has been tested with the scientific method. It has always passed, this is highly indicative that it is true. It is an almost universally accepted scientific theory. You don't get any more scientific than that.
Clone

Overland Park, KS

#115926 Feb 3, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
If she claims to be an eyewitness, why would you doubt her?
Or, if someone claims to be an eyewitness of aliens, why would you doubt them?
Maybe they both have a serious credibility problem.
Here is the issue, some humans have been labeled "Expert". Some humans deep inside know they are the smartest people on earth. A few are on this sight, they probably have been reading everything they can access. Thats great, but sometimes common sense and intelligence cant be stored together in the brain. The ability to read about something and store that info and be able to think and analyze that info is true intelligence. The Big Bang is a theory based on "Expert" knowledge, does not mean its true. Science will never know the truth, text books are filled with human based logic to try and understand our life in the universe. Just because its in a book or on the net does NOT mean its correct or accurate....think people.
LowellGuy

United States

#115927 Feb 3, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The failing school systems across the planet, due to government control, fail in the most important way and that is, to teach how to think for oneself.
The gov teaches A B C's and 1 2 3's, it teaches what to say and what to do. It teaches what not to say and what not to do.
Most of the housing bubble and fall were not due to lending to those who couldn't afford it, but it was due to the group think, taught all throughout school and work.
I'll bet none of you know what it was.
Do you accept that 2 + 2 = 4, or do you think for yourself?
LowellGuy

United States

#115928 Feb 3, 2013
Clone wrote:
<quoted text>Here is the issue, some humans have been labeled "Expert". Some humans deep inside know they are the smartest people on earth. A few are on this sight, they probably have been reading everything they can access. Thats great, but sometimes common sense and intelligence cant be stored together in the brain. The ability to read about something and store that info and be able to think and analyze that info is true intelligence. The Big Bang is a theory based on "Expert" knowledge, does not mean its true. Science will never know the truth, text books are filled with human based logic to try and understand our life in the universe. Just because its in a book or on the net does NOT mean its correct or accurate....think people.
So, we should care about what idiots say as much as what experts say?

And, science isn't based on what a particular expert says. You're stupid and flailing about it. Go get educated and stop being a whiny dumbass.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115929 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
All of your evo-babbling is transparent. You cannot defend any tenet of evolution without reference to religion. The percentage of ERV functionality centers entirely around the religion of atheism. Think about it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
You are incorrect. YOU cannot attack any tenet of evolution without reference to religion. Hence why you always bring up atheism, which is still nothing more than an admission that your "scientific alternative is Goddidit with magic. I'd tell you to think about it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself except that it's a number of years too late.

In the meantime we can go back to the evidence I pointed out for ERV's and we can see that there is a grand total of ZERO reference to either theism or atheism. Which once again demonstrates that you, with your "degree" and "four years of medical training", are incapable of dealing with reality favouring instead to argue via rhetoric and childish caricatures.

Soon I will go back and take a look at just how much of my posts you have debunked since I was last here, which I REALLY hope you will have attempted.

Why is it that I'm going to be disappointed?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115930 Feb 3, 2013
Clone wrote:
<quoted text>Here is the issue, some humans have been labeled "Expert". Some humans deep inside know they are the smartest people on earth. A few are on this sight, they probably have been reading everything they can access. Thats great, but sometimes common sense and intelligence cant be stored together in the brain. The ability to read about something and store that info and be able to think and analyze that info is true intelligence. The Big Bang is a theory based on "Expert" knowledge, does not mean its true. Science will never know the truth, text books are filled with human based logic to try and understand our life in the universe. Just because its in a book or on the net does NOT mean its correct or accurate....think people.
Correct. The Big Bang MAY be completely wrong. The way science works is that we come up with an abstract model which attempts to match up to reality. New facts discovered later may require us to modify that model, or in rare cases throw it out completely.

Therefore if we have a current scientific theory that works we stick to that model until someone comes up with a better theory.

Unfortunately for creationists the only thing they have to offer is invisible Jewish wizardry.

And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.
Clone

Overland Park, KS

#115931 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. The Big Bang MAY be completely wrong. The way science works is that we come up with an abstract model which attempts to match up to reality. New facts discovered later may require us to modify that model, or in rare cases throw it out completely.
Therefore if we have a current scientific theory that works we stick to that model until someone comes up with a better theory.
Unfortunately for creationists the only thing they have to offer is invisible Jewish wizardry.
And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.
You said, "we come up with........", are you part of the scientific community? Answer this: Can humans apply their logic, knowledge and theories to comprehend how the alien world functions? One topix person said, "There is no way an alien craft could travel thru the universe to earth from another system, they cant go faster than C2". Their lies the problem, humans can not get passed the "learned" behavior or theories. They must think outside human understanding in order to analyze the alien world. Aliens don't fit in the realm of human thought. Hence, the religious cult like atmosphere on earth.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115932 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You don't understand the difference between science and bedtime stories.

LOL. You get busted and this is all you have left.

Your ignorance of science has been fully exposed. You have never set foot inside of a university except maybe to sweep the halls.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115933 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
All of your evo-babbling is transparent. You cannot defend any tenet of evolution without reference to religion. The percentage of ERV functionality centers entirely around the religion of atheism. Think about it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

You are not even making sense again. Please try to remember your reader when you are writing. Write for comprehension. Try to make sense.

thanks.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#115934 Feb 3, 2013
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

&#8213; Alvin Toffler

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115935 Feb 3, 2013
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right... In last months issue alone they jump from one expert saying evolution couldn't have happened as fast as we think to another article right after that one with another so called scientist saying evolution in humans is occurring at an alarming rate!! Lol...
Yes, real scientific debate and discovery. Like I said, more truth than you will find in Genesis.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115936 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The percentage of ERV functionality centers entirely around the religion of atheism.
The amount of gold in the Klondike is proportional to the square root of Haley's comet.

It is hard to tell which of the two sentences above makes less sense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115938 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You don't understand the difference between science and bedtime stories.
Sure I do. It goes like this.

Creationists demand that evolutionists give a plausible explanation for some evolved feature we do not fully understand because there is little fossil evidence available. For example, "Hey Evos, tell us how something as complex as the 3-boned middle ear could evolve from the jawbones!".

So the evo says something like, "Well, we don't know, but we suspect the main bone of the jaw elongated and the smaller bones were crowded into the back. Perhaps it was stronger, perhaps it aided with the development of more complex dentition noted on mammals, or perhaps it aided hearing somehow."

"Aha!", yells the creationist, "An evo told a bunch of just so stories and called it science!"

Well, no, he didn't. He suggested some plausible alternatives that were consistent with how evolution would have to work.

20, 30, 40 years later, the actual fossils turn up which tell us exactly how the 3-boned middle ear evolved.

The yapping creationist simply ignores this fantastic demonstration of macroevolution, and asks, "Oh yeah, well tell us how the whale gained the ability to suckle at sea!!!" or some other pointless question.

BTW - whales have every gene for smelling various chemicals that land mammals do - about a thousand of them. But because the whale has no use for smell through its blow-hole, every single one of these genes is now broken. Just like the vitamin C gene of primates. Pseudogenes are alive and well, and for the most part, useless.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115939 Feb 3, 2013
Clone wrote:
<quoted text>You said, "we come up with........", are you part of the scientific community? Answer this: Can humans apply their logic, knowledge and theories to comprehend how the alien world functions? One topix person said, "There is no way an alien craft could travel thru the universe to earth from another system, they cant go faster than C2". Their lies the problem, humans can not get passed the "learned" behavior or theories. They must think outside human understanding in order to analyze the alien world. Aliens don't fit in the realm of human thought. Hence, the religious cult like atmosphere on earth.
Oh, it's you again. Still don't care about your little green/grey men.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#115940 Feb 3, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL. You get busted and this is all you have left.
It's all he's had for 12 months.(shrug)

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115941 Feb 3, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you accept that 2 + 2 = 4, or do you think for yourself?
Maybe he will invent non-Euclidean arithmetic.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#115942 Feb 3, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The pseudogenes paradigm also has collapsed. Virtually all DNA is now believed to be functional. Darwinism cannot make scientific predictions because its entire foundation is false.
You mean that some small residual function might have been found for some pseudogene somewhere, and in the creationist mind that means no more pseudogenes!

BTW, to repeat the ENCODE actual claims again:

8-9% of functionality found.
20% functionality estimated (another 11-12%).
60% activity that appears to be utterly useless, such as transcribing RNA fragments that are simply disassembled again, or pouring out additional parasitical ERV copies.
20% that seems to do nothing at all.

Virtually all of it is "functional" eh?
Read past the headlines bozo.

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 Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 1 hr Stop Statism 1,932
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 69,653
I came from a rib not a creek. 5 hr Subduction Zone 54
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Subduction Zone 30,032
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 11 hr Dogen 3,765
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 11 hr Dogen 130
Is Creationism and Intelligent Design debunked ... 11 hr Subduction Zone 83
More from around the web