Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179628 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.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116169 Feb 6, 2013
urban cowboy wrote:
<quoted text>
That was just dumb.
But "the magical properties of water" isn't dumb. Gotcha.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#116170 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...
Do you have the Ray Comfort $10 challenge memorized?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116171 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
The Evo morons have changed evolution to adaptation, because evolution never happened. They don't seem to recognize adaptation and evolution have two different definitions. However, science will change the definitions to one.
Let us know when science changes the definitions to become one.
Right from the start, evolution was defined as adaptation to the environment in a continuing process that could result in large changes over time. Evolution is nothing more than adaptive change over a long period.

The only argument between evolutionists and creationists is that evolutionist regard adaptation has continuing for millions of years with open-ended results, while creationists think there is some sort of limit on the maximum amount of adaptation no matter how long the process runs.

You would think that after years of your prattling on these sites, you might have picked up on the simplest aspects of the argument, but you cannot even do that.

Still think radio waves are sound waves?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116172 Feb 6, 2013
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
What comes out of a RADIO ???
SOUNDWAVES
moron
(Sorry couldn't resist)
:-P
Level 6

Since: Aug 07

Arlington, VA

#116173 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so this is your rule. Cute.
Now show the mechanism that underlies your made up rule. The one that stops adaptation being open ended and continuous, and sets limits on the amount of variation allowed. I note that even within your "rule", you have contradicted yourself by claiming that potential genetic variation is unlimited, but restricted. Could you be any less logical?
What part of unlimited within its own defined species don't you understand? Or are you just bitching?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#116174 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure
What's a "science" source?
Adaptation is not evolution
Neither is natural selection
Expression of exiting genotypical features is not evolution
Variability is merely phenotype derived from existing alleles
Loss of variability is natural selection
This is driven by environmental stress
Darwin’s little engine can’t produce innovation
Where in a fossil record so you have a “record” of evolution?

It is difficult to discuss a scientific concept with someone who does not understand the basics but, fool that I am, I will give it a try.

A science source is one that deals with the scientific in a manor that is as unbiased as possible. Many of the sites you have linked to have an admitted bias (at least they are honest about that). A science site just presents what is known and believed with references to the peer review literature (the source of science).

Second, you appear to have misunderstood my previous post. I did not say that adaptation IS evolution. I said it is one of the mechanisms of evolution (actually a category of mechanisms).

Likewise Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution.

Evolution is a fact even if we had no mechanisms for it, just as gravity would not stop having an effect even if we had no theory to account for it. Evolution has been observed to occur in the genomic record, in the fossil record, in field studies and in the laboratory.

Evolution happens regardless of how people try to wish the theory away. If the theory of evolution disappeared tomorrow, things would still evolve just as they always have. It may be fun to argue about why it can't happen, but it still does.

“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.”

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) 7 min marksman11 150,604
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 52 min Igor Trip 195,511
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr scientia potentia... 29,520
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr scientia potentia... 11,588
Science News (Sep '13) 7 hr scientia potentia... 3,621
News Exposing the impotence of the Neo-Darwinian theory (Jan '15) 10 hr asar 12
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 17 hr ChristineM 14,570
More from around the web