Should evolution be taught in high sc...

Should evolution be taught in high school?

There are 179268 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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116159 Feb 6, 2013
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you (Jimbo) are unable to extract the fundamental principle from a specific application.
Morons are like that.
A symptom of schizophrenia I believe?

Dogen will know.
One way or another

United States

#116160 Feb 6, 2013
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.
One way or another

United States

#116161 Feb 6, 2013
All the Evo morons act and speak as if its impossible for any of them to be wrong. That's part of the reason I call them children. Lol

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116162 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.
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?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#116163 Feb 6, 2013
appleboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yikes. I'm getting an idea what they call it The Troubles.
I've seen a little bit of how war can transform people. My own personal experience in Vietnam was mostly uneventful. No war stories, I just did my small job driving a mail truck. But I got to know several combat veterans who learned to love war. For some it's like a religion, it gives them a sense of purpose.
I hope you and those you care about remain safe and that a peaceful resolution will be found.
It’s certainly a lot more stable than it was but I believe the upcoming poll is starting to excite things again

Yes religion seems to have that effect even if it’s a substitute.

Cheers, we all hope that.
One way or another

United States

#116164 Feb 6, 2013
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.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116165 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Team
Lol, hey moron, light waves are not sound waves.
They do different things. The test was done with light. If they wanted to test with radio waves, they would have done so, but idiots rarely comprehend. Lol, thanks
Radio waves are not sound waves, you dumbass.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116166 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you seriously think that radio waves are sound waves? And you presume to lecture us all on how astronomers and physicists are wrong?
Certifiable.
Indeed.

I guess Jimbozo thinks he can hear radio waves. Much like Marky can see electrons.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#116167 Feb 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
All the Evo morons act and speak as if its impossible for any of them to be wrong. That's part of the reason I call them children. Lol
Do you really think any of us give a rat's ass that you call us children? We all know who the fool is here. You just the whiny little fat kid with the runny nose sticking his tongue out.
Mugwump

London, UK

#116168 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Radio waves are not sound waves, you dumbass.
What comes out of a RADIO ???

SOUNDWAVES

moron

(Sorry couldn't resist)

“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.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min Patrick n Angela 27,286
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 51 min Critical Eye 186,835
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr GTID62 5,996
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 6 hr _Susan_ 14,382
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr ChristineM 148,328
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Feb 5 Critical Eye 1,735
Poll How Do You View The New Millerite Adventist Inv... (Apr '15) Feb 1 Critical Eye 10
More from around the web