Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 180393 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116175 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where exactly is all this evidence that you allude o?
What fossil evidence?
"All fossils support evolution?"
Huh?
Usual evolutionary garbage
How about evolutionary stasis? Does that support evolution as well?
I am acutely aware I am talking to someone for whom acceptance of being wrong is impossible...
But never mind...

Evolutionary stasis supports evolution. Over long periods of time even "static" organisms tend to change somewhat. The Coelacanth is relatively static, yet there are clear differences from the specimens in the fossil record with the modern variety.
One way or another

United States

#116176 Feb 6, 2013
Twice

As usual, the Evo morons childish clique cackle about people, because science means nothing to these morons, all though they can copy and paste. Too bad they never offer even one new thought as a group, for science, in all the years they have been here. Then they pretend to judge other people as the classic, childish cliques, from elementary school.

Poor ignorant children, they add nothing of value for all the years they have been here.

The Evo morons here and their childish clique, make claims that everything they talk about, proves evolution or everything that supports evolution, but when they are challenged, they resort to the childish cliques only line and that is, the clique using their childish antics, to show everyone, the clique cares nothing about science, but rather their clique. If you use intelligent reasoning, they will use childish antics and not care what anyone thinks or says.

Deceit is their first and last line of defense.
One way or another

United States

#116177 Feb 6, 2013
Main Entry: varve
Pronunciation:\&#712;värv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Swedish varv turn, layer; akin to Old Norse hvarf ring, Old English hweorfan to turn — more at wharf
Date: 1912
: a pair of layers of alternately finer and coarser silt or clay believed to comprise an annual cycle of deposition in a body of still water

Science is becoming very shabby. Above is the original definition. Now science is changing the definition below, as evolution distorts most everything.

Science is also changing the definition of adaptation to evolution, according to what the Evo morons are claiming.

Science has become a vehicle in the name of money and power. The truth matters not to evolution science. It has become shit for morons, at least evolution science.

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/var...
One way or another

United States

#116178 Feb 6, 2013
Anything with the word evolution attached, is fodder for morons.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116179 Feb 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of unlimited within its own defined species don't you understand? Or are you just bitching?

I guess the part about it not being true is really the problem.

Also that you have provided no mechanism for preventing evolution beyond that level.

Also you have acknowledged evolution beyond the species level.

Also, evolution at this level has been observed in the genomic record.

Also, evolution at this level (and way beyond) is observed in the fossil record.

Speciation has been observed and is a fact.

Sounds like your notion has already been refuted.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116180 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get so excited...Bud
There can be a tandem copy of an otherwise quiescent gene that may be potentiated by an adjoining promoter sequence.
But citrate utilisation is not a "new" or innovative feature.
E coli can utilise citrate ANYWAY. When required.
For Darwin's little engine to traverse the huge distance required for invention....there simply is no mechanism.
Not enough "millions" of years.....
May be you are not peddling hard enough, ol' chap?
Otherwise, Drosophila melanogaster would be an elephant by now, eh?
No. Most of the E. coli did not survive when exposed to a hostile environment. "When required" would have involved EVERY generation. After 50,000 generations, ONE generation acquired the ability to utilize citrate and pass it on to the next.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#116181 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Anything with the word evolution attached, is fodder for morons.
Including this post by you.

Putz.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116182 Feb 6, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't get me wrong. I see no reason why he can't be both.
One interesting finding of scientific research is that if you repeat a lie often enough you start to begin to believe it.
I'm starting to lean in that direction. Would you say that the posts including cryptic one-word lead-offs might be an indication of schizophrenia?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116183 Feb 6, 2013
Alien Outlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Lets move on(MUFON) sense no intelligent life has answered this question: Can humans contact advanced civilizations utilizing human technology?
At this point it is impossible to say one way or the other. We may or may not be the most advanced civilization in the universe. We may or may not be the only civilizaton capable of communicating beyond our own planet. We may live on the only planet in the universe that has any life. If we survive long enough we will probably find answers.

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116184 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Where exactly is all this evidence that you allude o?
What fossil evidence?
"All fossils support evolution?"
Huh?
Usual evolutionary garbage
How about evolutionary stasis? Does that support evolution as well?
I am acutely aware I am talking to someone for whom acceptance of being wrong is impossible...
But never mind...
Every generation of every species is in transition. There's no such thing as evolutionary stasis. Are you an exact copy of either of your parents?

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116185 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are radiometric dates consistent with an old earth the rule or the exception?
How about intermediates? We have thousands of them now, across all classes.
How about sediments? Are those types requiring long periods the rule or the exception?
How about galaxies more then 6000 light years away? Are they the exception UC?
etc.
Your problem is, you spend all your time on Creationist sites that spend all THEIR time focused on (usually imagined) rare anomalies, so you have no sense of the sheer weight of evidence that falsifies your viewpoint.
And Cowboy can have a rule for omelettes and beans for all I care, its meaningless to science.
You have to admit, he does better with food. Though some of his choices are beyond my limits of taste.

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#116186 Feb 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of unlimited within its own defined species don't you understand? Or are you just bitching?
So there are no limits on a species ability to adapt and change?
So the species Eukaryote can evolve into all multicellular life then? Problem solved!
One way or another

United States

#116187 Feb 6, 2013
Boo- lol

Main Entry: varve
Pronunciation:\&#712;värv\
Function: noun
Etymology: Swedish varv turn, layer; akin to Old Norse hvarf ring, Old English hweorfan to turn — more at wharf
Date: 1912
: a pair of layers of alternately finer and coarser silt or clay believed to comprise an annual cycle of deposition in a body of still water

Science is becoming very shabby. Above is the original definition. Now science is changing the definition below, as evolution distorts most everything.

Science is also changing the definition of adaptation to evolution, according to what the Evo morons are claiming.

Science has become a vehicle in the name of money and power.

http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/12/var...
One way or another

United States

#116188 Feb 6, 2013
Seeing back in time

Original work
By Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Science claims we are seeing back into time, some 14 billion years ago. Science claims that we can see that far back in time, because the light from those distant worlds and galaxies have been traveling here for those billions of years and that by such, we are looking back in time. That simply cannot be, according to science.

Simple light cannot carry images of those far off worlds and galaxies to our telescopes, meaning, our telescopes see out to that light, illuminating those entities, disproving relativity, gravitational lensing and light theory.

That's why I said, light cannot carry images of those worlds and galaxies, meaning, if their light speed and theory were true, we could see the light, but not the worlds or galaxies, because images cannot be carried on light.

former CIA Director, William Casey,“We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116189 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Anything with the word evolution attached, is fodder for morons.
Lasagne

Come on Mr Ryan, put us out of our misery -you ARE just a wind up merchant ain't ya ?

You obviously don't believe any of your new science as you refuse to discuss / defend it.

You obviously can't be THAT stupid to believe as an example sound waves are the same as radio waves, especially as its been pointed out so many times (we know you read other people posts)

You obviously can't be that dishonest to keep posting your new science when it's flaws have been pointed out.

C'mon - let us know you are a troll

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116190 Feb 6, 2013
Original work
By MikeF
Supported by evidence

Jim Ryan is an idiot.
QED

“Don't get me started”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Minneapolis

#116191 Feb 6, 2013
Urban Cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of unlimited within its own defined species don't you understand? Or are you just bitching?
It's an oxymoron.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Level 5

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#116192 Feb 6, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
What comes out of a RADIO ???
SOUNDWAVES
moron
(Sorry couldn't resist)
PoE!!
One way or another

United States

#116193 Feb 6, 2013
Gravity

Original work
Jim Ryan
Supported by evidence

Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

Earth fits correctly.

Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
It has over 300 times the mass.

The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.

Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
It has 15 times the mass.
That falls in line with my theory

Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
It has 17 times the mass.

Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
It has less than one percent the mass.
That falls in line with my hypothesis.

There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its orbit, so testing would not be so easy.

Hypothesis by ,--

Jim Ryan
Mugwump

Manchester, UK

#116194 Feb 6, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
PoE!!
Moi :-)

I sometimes try to out Jimbo Jimbo - but f$&k it's hard to come up with the same quality of nonsense as he does.

It's also somewhat scary to get into a mindset that even comes within spitting distance of his insanity.

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 24 min Aura Mytha 28,472
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr Aura Mytha 66,324
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 hr Agents of Corruption 221,195
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr River Tam 160,830
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Eagle 12 3,417
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 6 hr Dogen 79
What does the theory of evolution state? 6 hr Dogen 103
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 11 hr Subduction Zone 137
More from around the web