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 5,646)

Showing posts 112,901 - 112,920 of168,610
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Kansas City, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115943
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.
Darwin did not know about DNA which proves you are a moron.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115944
Feb 3, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
One must be careful not to step in the agenda pushing BS like some media outlets ( Talkorigins , Scientific American and many others )... No matter what subject is at hand ( ERV's, Higgs Boson, etc )... Without solid proof it's speculation or just bald face lies to sell print and get more funding... Just look at the global warming money racket !! Evolutionist will believe any snake oil sales man that might give Their foolishness some hope....
You should look up what "snake oil" means.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115945
Feb 3, 2013
 
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
One must be careful not to step in the agenda pushing BS like some media outlets ( Talkorigins , Scientific American and many others )... No matter what subject is at hand ( ERV's, Higgs Boson, etc )... Without solid proof it's speculation or just bald face lies to sell print and get more funding... Just look at the global warming money racket !!
Why?

Why do you hate kittens?

:-(

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115946
Feb 3, 2013
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> Darwinism cannot make scientific predictions because its entire foundation is false.
Homo erectus, tiktaalik, archeopteryx (and now 30+ avian/therapod crossovers), and therapsid mammal like reptiles, were all scientific predictions of evolution: divergence with modern species as we go back in time, together with convergence of contemporary species, then genus, family, orders, classes...

Adaptation to environmental change through natural selection is a prediction of evolution and is proven in both the wild and the lab.

The nested hierarchy of variation increasing with evolutionary distance, as found in pseudogenes, ERVs, and non-functional portions of ubiquitous proteins, are all prediction of evolution, specifically common ancestry. And these prediction match the predictions also confirmed in the fossil record. Its the same nested hierarchy.

The falsification of IC as espoused by Behe, predicted by evolution and confirmed.

The falsification of inevitable genetic entropy as espoused by Sanford, confirmed in the lab.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115947
Feb 3, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Here you go Bud,
Read stuff before jumping in the deep end.....

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090312/full/n...

From: Erika Check Hayden, Human genome at ten: Life is complicated
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/4... , accessed today:

"When we started out, the idea was that signalling pathways were fairly simple and linear," says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. "Now, we appreciate that the signalling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It's infinitely more complex."

Your problem is you're thinking linear.
That's redundant, so give it up.

The quaternary structure of DNA folding has huge implications

See,
Kapranov P, et al, "Genome-wide transcription and the implications for genomic organization", Nature Reviews. Genetics. 2007 Jun;8(6):413-23. Epub 2007 May 8

"Recent evidence of genome-wide transcription in several species indicates that the amount of transcription that occurs cannot be entirely accounted for by current sets of genome-wide annotations. Evidence indicates that most of both strands of the human genome might be transcribed, implying extensive overlap of transcriptional units and regulatory elements. These observations suggest that genomic architecture is not co-linear, but is instead interleaved and modular, and that the same genomic sequences are multifunctional: that is, used for multiple independently regulated transcripts and as regulatory regions."

Also, see
Rick Weiss, "Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle," http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

"The findings, from a project involving hundreds of scientists in 11 countries and detailed in 29 papers being published today, confirm growing suspicions that the stretches of "junk DNA" flanking hardworking genes are not junk at all. But the study goes further, indicating for the first time that the vast majority of the 3 billion "letters" of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks."

This is all ancient history...
Where've you been?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 112,901 - 112,920 of168,610
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••