Should evolution be taught in high school?

Feb 24, 2008 Full story: www.scientificblogging.com 176,162

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." Full Story
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116042 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Show proof that the citrus eater flask increased in population, liar.
It is generally accepted that consumption of oranges is beneficial health-wise and increase life-span.

Now bacteria are quite small, so relatively oranges are bigger compared to a bacteria that say a Spanish man...

.... Therefore the longevity effect is more pronounced than in humans.

Proof enough - simply new thoughts - produced when I am not shackled by logic, knowledge of the subject or sanity.

Oh by the way - doesn't work with lemons - wrong colour.
One way or another

United States

#116043 Feb 4, 2013
In reading so much about lenski's experiments, I had read where the bacteria that started using the citrate, could no longer take up the glucose and that they could no longer reproduce.

However, I cannot now find that same info. It also said that those bacteria were not eating well.

Perhaps I will find that info again.
One way or another

United States

#116044 Feb 4, 2013
Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.6 This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.

Read that last line again. Meaning, without AIR.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116046 Feb 4, 2013
For those that thought Jimbo is posting new thoughts, here is where he cut and pasted it from.

http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-...

Rock solid then

:-)

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116047 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
In reading so much about lenski's experiments, I had read where the bacteria that started using the citrate, could no longer take up the glucose and that they could no longer reproduce.
However, I cannot now find that same info. It also said that those bacteria were not eating well.
Perhaps I will find that info again.

That was early in the study. The bacteria were eating and reproducing fine after the two key mutations.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116048 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.6 This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions.
Read that last line again. Meaning, without AIR.

Nice cut & paste. To bad you have not a single clue what it means.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116049 Feb 4, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
For those that thought Jimbo is posting new thoughts, here is where he cut and pasted it from.
http://creation.com/bacteria-evolving-in-the-...
Rock solid then
:-)

Great source.
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116050 Feb 4, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice cut & paste. To bad you have not a single clue what it means.
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.

:-)
One way or another

United States

#116051 Feb 4, 2013
Try to go to the web page on this post.

Evolutionists in science are always using deceit.

NASA took down its own web page, because I proved their own test and words, showed that what they claimed, disproved speed of light theory. That's why they took down their own web page.

Funny, I prove NASA and Goddard must be stupid, according to their own web site.

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence
Moons reflectors bogus

So, the moons reflectors are 239,000 miles from earth, approximately and since the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, y'all must think that laser beam will get back to earth pretty fast. Actually, the light should return to earth from the moons reflectors in 1.3 seconds, with the reflectors designed to reflect the light back to the point it came from.

However, in the 1.3 seconds the light takes to return to its origin, the earth has moved approx 4,000 miles from the point source of light, according to sciences claim that our galaxy is traveling that fast in 1 second, making it impossible for science to capture any photons, at least according to science.

Science sure is messed up, thinking it can collect photons that are 4,000 miles behind the collector.

At least they depend on all of us being stupid enough to believe them. Well, at least the Evo morons here.

Stupidity of NASA +Goddard

On the website,----http://eclipse.gsf c.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser . html
It claims,--------- scientists have been able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters.
I say, WOW, what a marvel.
On to the next part.
Science claims,---"Lunar ranging involves sending a laser beam through an optical telescope," Dickey said. "The beam enters the telescope where the eye piece would be, and the transmitted beam is expanded to become the diameter of the main mirror, then bounced off the surface toward the reflector on the Moon."
The reflectors are too small to be seen from Earth, so even when the beam is precisely aligned in the telescope, actually hitting a lunar retroreflector array is technically challenging. At the Moon's surface the beam is roughly four miles wide. Scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime two miles away.
I say,--------so now, with a laser light 4 miles wide and an exact location, probably sending out a beacon or should be, they complain like hell. So much for close, perhaps 500 pound bomb close.
Now here is a crucial piece to my complaint.--------
Once the laser beam hits a reflector, scientists at the ranging observatories use extremely sensitive filtering and amplification equipment to detect the return signal, which is far too weak to be seen with the human eye. Even under good atmospheric viewing conditions, only one photon is received every few seconds.
I say,------read that last sentence very carefully. One photon every few seconds.
Science doesn't say one or two seconds or a couple of seconds. Instead, science claims a FEW seconds, meaning, it took 3 or more seconds for the photon to go from the moon to the earth. That means, that the beam should have taken, 1.3 seconds and not a full 3 seconds or more as NASA and the Goddard space center claim.
Suck on that Evo morons.

Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116052 Feb 4, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Try to go to the web page on this post.
NASA took down its own web page, because I proved their own test and words, showed that what they claimed, disproved speed of light theory. That's why they took down their own web page.
[snipped]
Bring proof that NASA took down a web page moron
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

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
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 7 min Dogen 519
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 min Dogen 132,479
How would creationists explain... 21 min Chimney1 318
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 4 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,617
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) 10 hr Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) 16 hr positronium 2,943
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web