Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 178618 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

#116053 Feb 4, 2013
The childish morons make many claims that I don't say, because deceit is all they have.

If I claim the work as mine, it will have my name on it and a claim to that work.

Deceitful childish morons need to be recognized for the deceitful morons they choose to be.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116054 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The childish morons make many claims that I don't say, because deceit is all they have.
If I claim the work as mine, it will have my name on it and a claim to that work.
Deceitful childish morons need to be recognized for the deceitful morons they choose to be.
Errh, you name (or at least your 15th moniker) is posted on every post - if you are cut and pasting from a different source it is not up to us to guess which one - just post a link - makes it simpler don't you think?

Anyway Jimbo - you never answered my challenge - choose one of you new thoughts, the one that you feel you can best defend - and enter I to a discussion and ... Well defend it.

How come you refuse to do this?

Anyway I have an early meeting (with the US congress about new educational policy) so will let you ignore my challenge and post your nonsense for the next 5 hours.

Have at it - you bore me now.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116055 Feb 4, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
The trick is (and I trust that as a member of the Jewish carpet-laying cartel, you will keep this between us)
Cntl-C
Google
Cntl-V
<enter>
As I say keep it under you hat or Jimbo will know we are onto him.
:-)

I am aware of the technique. Creationists have no concerns about plagiarism or copyright laws.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116056 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The childish morons make many claims that I don't say, because deceit is all they have.
If I claim the work as mine, it will have my name on it and a claim to that work.
Deceitful childish morons need to be recognized for the deceitful morons they choose to be.

I would not put my worst enemy's name of the claptrap you post.

I have mentioned that you are mentally ill, have I not?

Paranoid delusions must really suck.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116060 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
There were 12 flasks in Lenski's experiment, and all of them adapted to the environment given and showed population increases over time as they adapted. Just as we would expect in the evolution / adaptation paradigm. And while all of them came from a monoclonal starting culture, the specific adaptations and mutations involved in every flask were different. The famous citrate-eater flask was an unexpected bonus.
Adaptation is not evolution? Perhaps, in the same way that driving a mile a mile is not a trip across America, but evolution is nothing but adaptation continued. You now have to explain what effect exists that you think prevents adaptation from continuing indefinitely, especially in environments that are not as stable as provided in the Lenski experiment. What is this magic wall that you IDers are so sure has to exist?
Hi Bud
Real nice try an' all
But
Adaptation is not evolution....
GTE demands single celled organisms arising from inorganic matter and gaining the DNA to provide the complexity we observe in living things today.
See Kerkut
Here http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerk...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116063 Feb 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You solved this problem? When do you receive your Nobel Prize?
<quoted text>
Actually, it is. It is one of the (actually part of several of the) mechanisms of evolution.
Look it up.
Mutation (Biased or not)
Migration
Genetic Drift
Natural selection
Genetic hitchhiking
Gene Flow
Adaptation
Co-evolution
<quoted text>
Actually, that is the very definition of evolution. You are saying purple is a shade of green.
<quoted text>
It says it happened. BTW, it did not take 20,000 generations to achieve the the mutations. The experiment has gone on 20,000 generations but the mutations occurred early in the experiment.
You seem to want to avoid the real issue which is that evolution happens. Evolution has been observed in the field, in the fossil record, in the genomic record and now in the laboratory.
You might as well try to philosophically argue away gravity. It still happens and it is still observable regardless of what nonsense you posit to disrupt it.
No, no and no, again
Adaptation is not evolution
Just saying so, does not make it so

Natural selection???
C'mon, Bud
Surely you're smarter than that?

How is natural selection "evolution"

Again, as requested before.....
Check GTE Kerkut, creation.com

No, don't be shy
Don't be a materialistic bigot either...check it out
Creation.com

No evidence exists for what is demanded by "evolution"
None what so ever

Greater minds than ours' have been infuriated by the shoddy pseudoscience that is "evolution"

Its trash

Should not be referred to as science

Please check
http://creation.com/antagonistic-epistasis

This is regarding another experiment similar to Lenski's where 4 mutations resulted

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116064 Feb 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no and no, again
Adaptation is not evolution
Just saying so, does not make it so
Natural selection???
C'mon, Bud
Surely you're smarter than that?
How is natural selection "evolution"
Again, as requested before.....
Check GTE Kerkut, creation.com
No, don't be shy
Don't be a materialistic bigot either...check it out
Creation.com
No evidence exists for what is demanded by "evolution"
None what so ever
Greater minds than ours' have been infuriated by the shoddy pseudoscience that is "evolution"
Its trash
Should not be referred to as science
Please check
http://creation.com/antagonistic-epistasis
This is regarding another experiment similar to Lenski's where 4 mutations resulted
If you want to be taken seriously try to find real science that supports you. If you want to be laughed at and labeled as a dumbshit just keep up your present activities.
One way or another

United States

#116065 Feb 4, 2013
Twin

The science of running by Jim Ryan.

Yes, I used to run 10 miles a day for about 2 years. For whatever reason, I started counting a cadence in my head, that matched the cadence of my footfalls and my breathing, which synced body and mind, helping me to get into a trance like state, allowing me to run mile after mile without stress and the last mile I could run almost flat out.

I know they teach different things today, but give my method a try, I think you'll like it. By the way, keep your eyes focused just in front of you, on the ground.

The cadence in running I used to use was, "one two three one", " one two three two", "one two three three", and keep going.

It's a 4 count breathing in and then a 4 count breathing out.

Happy running.
One way or another

United States

#116066 Feb 4, 2013
It's good to see two other people here that have a real brain and know how to use it. They would be, HTS and Russell.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116067 Feb 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to be taken seriously try to find real science that supports you. If you want to be laughed at and labeled as a dumbshit just keep up your present activities.
I think MazHere was too harsh with you
You seem damaged somehow now...

Quite useless to me like this

Tsk

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#116068 Feb 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I think MazHere was too harsh with you
You seem damaged somehow now...
Quite useless to me like this
Tsk
You mean Maz with her Blue Waffle that used to stink up the place?

Puhlease! Try again.

So what sort of idiotic claims are you going to make tonight?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116069 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
It's good to see two other people here that have a real brain and know how to use it. They would be, HTS and Russell.
There you go, HTS and Russell!

You've got "One way or another" (among his other screen names) on your side now!

.....sucks to be you!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#116070 Feb 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Bud
Real nice try an' all
But
Adaptation is not evolution....
GTE demands single celled organisms arising from inorganic matter and gaining the DNA to provide the complexity we observe in living things today.
See Kerkut
Here http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerk...
Sorry, but that's not a scientific explanation at all.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#116072 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Lively
Housing fall
More new science by Jim Ryan
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.
If you are able to think for yourself, it should be very easy to figure out, especially in hindsight and knowing that the rise and fall of the housing industry was due to group think and action.
The housing fall came not from the bad loans, but rather from the good loans. The good loans were the ones that borrowed money to renovate their homes. There were quite a number of tv shows touting the money to be made by renovation, coupled with politicians, realtors, home improvement stores, gov and more, making money by creating the schools, follow the leader mentality.
Fart.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116074 Feb 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but that's not a scientific explanation at all.
I agree

It's a definition

Well spotted 99
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116075 Feb 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, HTS and Russell!
You've got "One way or another" (among his other screen names) on your side now!
.....sucks to be you!
Ne hao, Kong

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116076 Feb 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Bud
Real nice try an' all
But
Adaptation is not evolution....
GTE demands single celled organisms arising from inorganic matter and gaining the DNA to provide the complexity we observe in living things today.
See Kerkut
Here http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerk...
The old trick of trying to undermine what we do know by conflating it with something we don't know is an old creationist saw.

Evolution would still be valid even if God poofed the first life into existence.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#116077 Feb 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The old trick of trying to undermine what we do know by conflating it with something we don't know is an old creationist saw.
Evolution would still be valid even if God poofed the first life into existence.
Nope

Evolution, as I have clearly defined just recently, is the conversion of inorganic substances into living cells, with the inexplicable gain of DNA by absolutely NO KNOWN MEANS..... and voila!!

Here we all are....

Change is not evolution

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116078 Feb 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Monod and Jacob must be turning in their graves....
What else you got?
Regarding Lenski's citrate eating bacteria:

" This led the researchers to conclude that there had been at least two potentiating mutations involved in Cit+ evolution. The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones sequenced had in their genomes a duplication mutation of 2933 base pairs that involved the gene for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth on citrate, citT. The duplication is tandem, resulting in two copies that are head-to-tail with respect to each other. This duplication immediately conferred the Cit+ trait by creating a new regulatory module in which the normally silent citT gene is placed under the control of a promoter for an adjacent gene called rnk. The new promoter activates expression of the citrate transporter when oxygen is present, and thereby enabling aerobic growth on citrate."

Whadya know?

A base insertion involving an ADDITION of a sequence 2933 base pairs long...that adds information, adds functionality, increases population in the given environment and is thus beneficial. Its also a "macro" event compared to the "micro" adaptations in the other 11 flasks (that still resulted in improving those populations' survival and reproductive rates in this environment).

Its the whole nine yards, refuting multiple creationist canards all at once.

I don't know why I am even bothering to argue with a YEC, you are all mad as hatters.

www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologiccolumn....

I don't care if you hate the source...can you refute the science or answer the questions raised in a 6000 year framework?



Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116079 Feb 4, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
Evolution, as I have clearly defined just recently, is the conversion of inorganic substances into living cells, with the inexplicable gain of DNA by absolutely NO KNOWN MEANS..... and voila!!
Here we all are....
Change is not evolution
You may come up with any novel definition you like, and conflate evolution with abiogenesis if it makes you feel better. I will stick to the definitions accepted by biologists.

For example:

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

Wiki, original source:

Hall, B. K.; Hallgrímsson, B., eds.(2008). Strickberger's Evolution (4th ed.). Jones & Bartlett. pp. 762. ISBN 0-7637-0066-5.

Not to mention Chemists:

All molecules containing carbon and other compounds are classed as organic, even the plastic in your toothbrush. Apologies if you knew that already...but if you did, why the absurd claims above?

Point being...there is nothing magical that happens to "organic substances" when they happen to be incorporated into a living organism for a time.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 min Chimney1 141,393
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 min Zog Has-fallen 19,090
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 40 min Chimney1 164,474
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 7 hr Rose_NoHo 473
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 13 hr Dogen 1,874
When is Quote Mining Justified? 21 hr Zog Has-fallen 26
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu GTID62 86
More from around the web